Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-04355/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-04355-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Briggs
Petitioner
Spearman
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 It appears that petitioner is currently incarcerated on a different underlying conviction

because he also stated that he was convicted on August 2, 2013, for a different case number.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

KEVIN BRIGGS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

WARDEN SPEARMAN,

Respondent. /

No. C 15-4355 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner appears to be challenging a parole revocation from November 29, 2006. 

He argues that the legislation and injunction stemming from Valdivia v. Brown, 956 F.

Supp. 2d 1125 (E.D. Cal. July 3, 2013), which provided inmates facing parole revocation

with certain rights should be made retroactive to his 2006 hearing. He seeks a restoration

of one year of credits and a removal of the violation from his record.1

 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

Case 1:15-cv-04355-NJV Document 6 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.

1970)). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject

to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102,

1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. Analysis

In addition to the underlying petition in this case, petitioner has filed a motion to stay

pending a ruling from the California Supreme Court. Before he may challenge either the

fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in this court, petitioner must present to

the California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise in this court. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition

must be exhausted). The general rule is that a federal district court must dismiss a federal

habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. 

Id. 

A fully unexhausted federal habeas petition may not be stayed and must be

dismissed. See, e.g., Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that

a fully unexhausted petition may not be stayed and observing: “Once a district court

determines that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire

further as to the petitioner's intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition

for failure to exhaust.”); Jones v. McDaniel, 320 Fed. Appx. 784, 786 (9th Cir.2009)

(affirming the dismissal of a fully unexhausted petition and denial of a stay, because a

“Rhines stay is only available for a mixed habeas petition where at least some of the claims

have been exhausted, and none of [petitioner's] claims were exhausted”). 

Case 1:15-cv-04355-NJV Document 6 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Because petitioner has presented an unexhausted petition, this case is dismissed

without prejudice and petitioner may refile when the claims are exhausted.

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 5) is GRANTED.

2. The motion to stay (Docket No. 2) is DENIED.

3. The petition is dismissed without prejudice and petitioner may refile when the

claims are exhausted. Because reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable,

a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

 

Case 1:15-cv-04355-NJV Document 6 Filed 10/22/15 Page 3 of 3