Source: https://casetext.com/case/washington-v-cal-substance-abuse-treatment-facility-warden
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:22:15+00:00

Document:
TRAVIS WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY WARDEN, Respondent.
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility serving a four-year sentence for second-degree robbery. (ECF No. 1 at 2). On April 30, 2018, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulation that allegedly conflicts with Article I, section 32(a)(1)(A) of the California Constitution. (ECF No. 1 at 3).
On May 3, 2018, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 4). The order to show cause was served on Petitioner and contained notice that a response should be filed within thirty days of the date of service of the order. Over thirty days have passed and Petitioner has not responded to the Court's order to show cause.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it "plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court."
A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. 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 the 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).
It is possible that Petitioner presented all of his claims to the California Supreme Court and failed to indicate this to the Court. However, as Petitioner has not responded to the order to show cause, it appears that Petitioner failed to exhaust the claims raised in the instant petition. If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies.

References: v. 
 § 2254
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2254