Causey v. Alameda County Superior Court

District Court, N.D. California·Decided May 10, 2022·No. 4:22-cv-00265·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 LAMAR CAUSEY, Case No. 22-cv-00265-YGR (PR)

7 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF 8 v. APPEALABILITY

9 ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 10 Respondent.

11 I. INTRODUCTION 12 Petitioner proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 13 § 2254. The Court ordered petitioner to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as 14 unexhausted. Dkt. 4. To date, petitioner has not filed a response, and the deadline for doing so 15 has passed. 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 A. Standard of Review 18 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 19 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 20 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 21 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 22 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 23 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 24 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner . . . [and] state the facts 25 supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 26 “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real 27 possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 1 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). “[H]abeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally 2 insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 3 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 4 B. Analysis 5 Before he may challenge either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in 6 this Court, petitioner must present to the California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise 7 in this Court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal 8 habeas petition must be exhausted). The general rule is that a federal district court must dismiss a 9 federal habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. 10 Id. 11 A fully unexhausted federal habeas petition may not be stayed and must be dismissed. See, 12 e.g., Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a fully unexhausted 13 petition may not be stayed and observing: “Once a district court determines that a habeas petition 14 contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to the petitioner’s intentions. 15 Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”); Jones v. McDaniel, 320 16 Fed. Appx. 784, 786 (9th Cir.2009) (affirming the dismissal of a fully unexhausted petition and 17 denial of a stay, because a “Rhines1 stay is only available for a mixed habeas petition where at 18 least some claims have been exhausted, and none of [petitioner’s] claims were exhausted”). 19 It appeared that petitioner had presented a fully unexhausted petition. In his petition, 20 petitioner asserted that he had not appealed his conviction in state court. Dkt. 1 at 2-3. Petitioner 21 was provided an opportunity to demonstrate that the claims had been exhausted or to file an 22 amended petition raising exhausted claims. Petitioner has not filed a response or otherwise 23 communicated with the Court. 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice, and may be re-filed once the claims have 26 been exhausted. 27 1 Because reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of 2 || appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) 3 (standard for COA). 4 The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: May 10, 2022 J E YVONNE GON EZ ROGERS 7 ted States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Causey v. Alameda County Superior Court, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Causey v. Alameda County Superior Court (Causey v. Alameda County Superior Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rose v. Lundy
455 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court, 1982)
McFarland v. Scott
512 U.S. 849 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Lucien M. Aubut v. State of Maine
431 F.2d 688 (First Circuit, 1970)
Jackie Ervin Rasberry v. Rosie B. Garcia, Warden
448 F.3d 1150 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Rose v. Hodges
423 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court, 1975)
United States v. Lopez
16 F. App'x 784 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)