(HC)Saldivar v. Superior Court of California, Fresno County

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 10, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00393
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RUSTY LEE SALDIVAR, Case No. 1:24-cv-00393-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COURT REMEDIES FRESNO COUNTY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 challenging the superior court’s bail determination and Petitioner’s continued pretrial detention. 20 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 requires preliminary review of a 21 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 22 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 23 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 24 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 25 Habeas petitions are subject to an exhaustion requirement—either a judicially-created 26 prudential one under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1135 n.9 (9th Cir. 27 1 The Court may apply any or all of these rules to habeas corpus petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. 1 2018), or a statutory one under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity 2 to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s alleged 3 constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 4 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner in state custody can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 5 providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 6 presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 7 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). “Where a 8 petitioner seeks pre-conviction habeas relief, this exhaustion prerequisite serves two purposes: 9 (1) to avoid isolating state courts from federal constitutional issues by assuring those courts an 10 ample opportunity to consider constitutional claims; and (2) to prevent federal interference with 11 state adjudication, especially state criminal trials.” Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 12 1980). 13 If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court cannot 14 proceed to the merits of his claims. Petitioner states that he “feel[s] a state direct appeal is 15 i[m]practicable,” which implies his claims have not been raised in the California Supreme Court. 16 (ECF No. 1 at 7.2) It is possible, however, that Petitioner also presented his claims to the 17 California Supreme Court and failed to indicate this to the Court. Thus, Petitioner must inform 18 the Court whether each of his claims has been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if 19 possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed in the California Supreme Court that 20 includes the claims now presented and a file stamp showing that the petition was indeed filed in 21 the California Supreme Court. 22 Accordingly, Petitioner is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within THIRTY (30) 23 days from the date of service of this order why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to 24 exhaust state remedies. 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order may result in a recommendation 2 | for dismissal of the petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (a petitioner’s 3 | failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order may result in a dismissal of the action). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 6 | Dated: _ April 10, 2024 "

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28