Causey v. Alameda County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 15, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00265
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 LAMAR CAUSEY, Case No. 22-cv-00265-YGR (PR)

Petitioner, 5 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. 6

7 ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 8 Respondent.

9 I. INTRODUCTION 10 Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 11 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted in Alameda County, which is in this district, so venue is proper 12 here. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). He has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2. 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 A. Standard of Review 15 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 16 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 17 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 18 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 19 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 20 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 21 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner . . . [and] state the facts 22 supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 23 “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real 24 possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 25 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally 26 insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 27 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). B. Analysis 1 Petitioner asserts that he has not appealed his conviction in state court. Dkt. 1 at 2-3. 2 Before he may challenge either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in 3 this Court, petitioner must present to the California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise 4 in this Court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal 5 habeas petition must be exhausted). The general rule is that a federal district court must dismiss a 6 federal habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. 7 Id. 8 A fully unexhausted federal habeas petition may not be stayed and must be dismissed. See, 9 e.g., Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a fully unexhausted 10 petition may not be stayed and observing: “Once a district court determines that a habeas petition 11 contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to the petitioner’s intentions. 12 Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”); Jones v. McDaniel, 320 13 Fed. Appx. 784, 786 (9th Cir.2009) (affirming the dismissal of a fully unexhausted petition and 14 denial of a stay, because a “Rhines1 stay is only available for a mixed habeas petition where at 15 least some of the claims have been exhausted, and none of [petitioner’s] claims were exhausted”). 16 It appears that petitioner has presented a fully unexhausted petition. If the claims are 17 unexhausted, the petition must be dismissed without prejudice and may be re-filed once the claim 18 has been exhausted. However, petitioner will be provided an opportunity to demonstrate that the 19 claims have been exhausted or file an amended petition raising the exhausted claims. 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 For the reasons outlined above, the Court orders as follows: 22 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 2. 23 2. Petitioner shall show cause within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this Order is 24 filed why this petition should not be dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted. Failure to file a 25 response within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action. 26 27 1 3. This Order terminates Docket No. 2. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: February 15, 2022 4 5 L~ pee bdagahrlblio IYDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28