Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01389/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01389-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aurelio Sanchez Aviles
Petitioner
J. Sullivan
Respondent

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURELIO SANCHEZ AVILES,

Petitioner,

v.

J. SULLIVAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01389-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST CLAIMS

ECF No. 1

Petitioner Aurelio Sanchez Aviles, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Petitioner claims that his due process rights are 

currently being violated by officials at his prison. See ECF No. 1 at 6. Petitioner states that he 

was granted elderly parole on April 10, 2019 and that his release date was set for July 19, 2010. 

Id. However, he remains incarcerated. Id.

1

 

The matter is before the court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to a habeas corpus proceeding must 

examine the petition and order a response thereto unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is 

 

1 We have reviewed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s inmate locator 

listing for the petitioner and take judicial notice of it per Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence. See California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Inmate Locator, 

https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (search “Search for Inmate” for “Aurelio Aviles”). The 

petitioner’s parole eligibility date is listed as July 2021.

Case 1:19-cv-01389-DAD-HBK Document 7 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 3
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

not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. 

Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Rule 4 was “designed to give courts an active 

role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions.” Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 

958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). The court may dismiss claims at screening for “easily 

identifiable” procedural defects. See id. We will order petitioner to show cause why his petition 

should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust his claims.

Discussion

Petitioner must exhaust his claims before seeking federal habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(1)(A); Murray v. Schriro, 882 F.3d 778, 807 (9th Cir. 2018). The exhaustion doctrine 

is based on comity; it gives the state courts the initial opportunity to correct the state’s alleged 

constitutional deprivations. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 

455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the 

highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to a

federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 

365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 

Here, petitioner states that he has sought neither prison administrative nor state court 

review of the prison’s failure to release him. See id. at 7. He has provided no evidence of having 

filed any state petitions or appeals. If petitioner is currently pursuing relief in state court—and we 

have no indication that he is—the existence of such a parallel proceeding would warrant the 

court’s abstinence from considering this case to allow state courts the first opportunity to address 

his claims. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. 

v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). If petitioner has not exhausted his claims, we cannot 

exercise jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, petitioner is ordered to show cause why his 

petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust his claims.

Case 1:19-cv-01389-DAD-HBK Document 7 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 3
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

Order

Accordingly, 

1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, petitioner must show 

cause as to why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust his 

claims. 

2. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this 

action.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

 

2 Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order may result in a recommendation for 

dismissal of the petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (stating that a 

petitioner’s failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order may result in a dismissal of an

action).

Case 1:19-cv-01389-DAD-HBK Document 7 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 3