Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02297/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02297-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Peery
Respondent
Carl Aroldo Williams
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL AROLDO WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

S. PEERY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-02297-HSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his criminal judgment. On August 1, 2016, the Court 

directed petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice 

because petitioner had not exhausted his state court remedies. On August 29, 2016, petitioner 

filed a letter in which he concedes that he has not raised any claims in the California Supreme 

Court.

As the Court previously advised petitioner, prisoners in state custody who wish to 

collaterally challenge either the fact or length of their confinement in federal habeas corpus 

proceedings are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through 

collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to 

rule on the merits of each and every claim the prisoners seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)-(c). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity 

to give the state “the initial ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its 

prisoners’ federal rights.’” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted). The 

exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim has been “fairly presented” to the state 

courts. See id.; Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The 

Case 4:16-cv-02297-HSG Document 13 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

state’s highest court must be given an opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is 

discretionary. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke “one 

complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.”). 

Petitioner does not request that the Court stay and hold his petition in abeyance while he 

returns to state court to exhaust his claims. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the petition 

without prejudice for failure to exhaust.

The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court 

that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in its ruling. 

See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner has not shown 

“that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 

procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a COA is 

DENIED. 

Petitioner seeks guidance on how to file his claims in state court. It is petitioner’s 

responsibility to get his state court petition filed. This Court cannot file the state habeas petition 

for him. Petitioner is advised that he must present all of his federal claims to the California 

Supreme Court and wait until he receives a decision from that court before presenting his claims in 

federal court in a new petition. Petitioner is cautioned to act swiftly to get to state court, proceed 

through state court, and return to federal court with a new petition so that he does not miss the 

one-year deadline in the habeas statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

9/22/2016

Case 4:16-cv-02297-HSG Document 13 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 2