Raphael S. Abduh-Salam v. Mike Patterson

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-09765
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAPHAEL S. ABDUH-SALAM, Case No. 25-cv-09765-JSC

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 MIKE PATTERSON, Respondent. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Raphael S. Abduh-Salam, a California prisoner proceeding without attorney 14 representation, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) 15 For the reasons explained below, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 16 exhaust his state court remedies. 17 BACKGROUND 18 According to the petition, on October 4, 2024, Petitioner was sentenced in Santa Cruz 19 County Superior Court to a term of 68 years to life in state prison for the following crimes: 20 attempted murder, aggravated assault, discharging a firearm into an inhabited building, and 21 possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon. (Id. at 1-2.) Petitioner appealed his conviction to 22 the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment in 2025.1 (Id. at 2-3.) See People v. 23 Abduh-Salam, No. H052600, 2025 WL 2701832, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2025). In response 24 to a question asking whether he appealed his conviction to the California Supreme Court, 25

26 1 According to the docket, the California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction on September 22, 2025. See 27 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=6&doc_id=3113337&doc_no 1 Petitioner circled “NO.” (Id. at 3.) In addition, Petitioner left blank the section in which the form 2 petition required him to provide information about “any proceeding other than an appeal” in which 3 he sought relief from his conviction. (Id. at 3.) Lastly, he indicates he had no “petition, appeal, or 4 other post-conviction proceeding” pending at the time he filed the instant petition. (Id. at 3-4.) 5 STANDARD OF REVIEW 6 This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 7 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 8 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall 9 “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not 10 be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 11 entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 12 DISCUSSION 13 “A discrete set of Rules governs federal habeas proceedings launched by state prisoners.” 14 Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 654 (2005) (citing Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 15 United States District Courts). “Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases authorizes a 16 district court to summarily dismiss a habeas petition, before the respondent files an answer, ‘[i]f it 17 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 18 relief in the district court.’” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2024). For 19 example, a Rule 4 summary dismissal is warranted if the petition reveals state court remedies have 20 not been exhausted as to any of the federal claims. Id. at 1045. 21 The petition plainly shows Petitioner may not proceed with his petition at this time because 22 he has failed to exhaust his state court remedies. An application for a federal writ of habeas 23 corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court may not 24 be granted unless the prisoner has first exhausted state judicial remedies, either by way of a direct 25 appeal or in collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair 26 opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every issue he or she seeks to raise in federal court. 27 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). The appropriate time 1 and if the petitioner exhausts after filing, he can bring his claims in a subsequent petition. Gatlin 2 || v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999). 3 When Petitioner filed this petition, he had appealed his conviction to the California Court 4 || of Appeal, but he had not filed an appeal with the California Supreme Court as he circled “NO” 5 when asked whether he had. (/d. at 2-3.) So, he had not presented the highest California court 6 available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits. Because the petition itself demonstrates 7 Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies as required by section 2254, the Court must 8 || dismiss his petition. See R. 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“If it plainly appears from 9 the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, 10 || the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”); see also Neiss, 11 114 F.4th at 1040-41 (‘Rule 4 dismissal is required on procedural grounds, such as failure to 12 || exhaust.”). 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after 3 15 available state judicial remedies are exhausted. In light of this ruling, the November 20, 2025 a 16 || Clerk’s Notice (Dkt. No. 2) is VACATED. 3 17 The clerk shall enter judgment without prejudice and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: November 24, 2025 20

ACQUELINE SCOTT CORL 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28