Johnathan R. Bordelon v. Sircoya M. Williams

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHNATHAN R. BORDELON, Case No. 25-cv-08947-PCP

8 Petitioner, ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD 9 v. NOT BE DISMISSED

10 SIRCOYA M. WILLIAMS, Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 4 Respondent. 11

12 13 Petitioner Johnathan Bordelon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a 14 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1 (“Petition”). The Petition is now before 15 the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 16 2254 Cases. Mr. Bordelon also has filed motions for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. 17 Dkt. Nos. 3, 4. 18 I. Standard of Review 19 This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 20 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 21 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 22 It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the 23 writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 24 detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 25 II. Analysis 26 Mr. Bordelon claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance before his plea 27 bargain and at sentencing. See Pet. at 5. Mr. Bordelon concedes that he pleaded nolo contendere to 1 Bordelon’s ineffective assistance claims. See United States v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 1219, 1220 (9th 2 Cir. 2010) (explaining that, under California law, a “plea of nolo contendere ‘is the functional 3 equivalent of a guilty plea’”); see also Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319–20 (1983) (holding 4 that a guilty plea forecloses consideration of pre-plea constitutional deprivations). 5 Mr. Bordelon did not answer the Petition’s questions regarding whether he appealed his 6 conviction. See Pet. at 2–3 (leaving these questions blank). The Court searched the records for the 7 California Supreme Court but was unable to find any record of an appeal by Mr. Bordelon. See 8 Appellate Courts Case Information, Search – Supreme Court, 9 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search.cfm?dist=0 (search for “Johnathan Bordelon” 10 returning no results). Mr. Bordelon stated that he has “no” “petition[s], appeal[s] or other post- 11 conviction proceedings now pending in any court.” See Pet. at 4. 12 Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings 13 either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, 14 either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court 15 available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in 16 federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515–16 (1982). The 17 state’s highest court must be given an opportunity to rule on the claims even if review is 18 discretionary. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (holding that petitioner must 19 invoke “one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.”). Because the 20 records of the California Supreme Court reveal that Mr. Bordelon did not give the highest state 21 court such an opportunity, it appears that Mr. Bordelon did not fulfill the exhaustion requirement 22 before filing the instant federal habeas petition. The Petition is therefore subject to dismissal on 23 that basis. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 522. 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 26 1. By June 22, 2026, Mr. Bordelon shall inform the Court why this matter should not 27 be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. If, despite his statement on the Petition, Mr. ] Court will take the appropriate next steps. If Mr. Bordelon fails to answer this Order to Show 2 Cause, this action will be dismissed for failure to exhaust. 3 2. Mr. Bordelon’s in forma pauperis application is DENIED because the initial 4 || assessment would exceed the filing fee for a habeas action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (requiring 5 a court to assess an initial filing fee of 20 percent of a prisoner’s average monthly deposits or 6 || monthly balance, whichever is greater). 7 3. It is Mr. Bordelon’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court 8 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice of 9 || Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 10 || will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 11 Procedure 41(b). %L

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 |] Dated: May 18, 2026 15

P. CASEY PITT 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28