UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 21, 2009
RONALD J. SMITH, AKA RON J. SMITH, PETITIONER,
RICHARD ALVARADO, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret M. Morrow United States District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER ON A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
On July 15, 2009, petitioner Reginald J. Smith, aka Ron J. Smith, a person in state custody proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the revocation of his parole on March 25, 2009. Petition at 2. The petition shows on its face that petitioner has not filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. Petition at 4-6.
A state prisoner must exhaust his state court remedies before petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b) and (c); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-43, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 1731, 144 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1999); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1201-02, 71 L.Ed. 2d 379 (1982); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 984-85 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 274 (1998). "The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine, now codified [at] 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b) and (c), reflects a policy of federal-state comity, an accommodation of our federal system designed to give the State an initial opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights." Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512, 30 L.Ed. 2d 438 (1971) (internal quotation marks, citations and footnote omitted); O'Sullivan, 528 U.S. at 844-45, 119 S.Ct. at 1732; Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996). "The exhaustion doctrine is principally designed to protect the state courts' role in the enforcement of federal law and prevent disruption of state judicial proceedings." Rose, 455 U.S. at 518, 102 S.Ct. at 1203.
Here, petitioner has not petitioned the California Supreme Court for collateral relief. Since petitioner's claims have not been exhausted in the state courts, the pending habeas petition must be dismissed without prejudice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55, 115 L.Ed. 2d 640 (1991); Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522, 102 S.Ct. at 1205.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States Courts provides that "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify petitioner." The instant petition shows that petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies regarding the claims in the pending petition; thus, the petition must be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered SUMMARILY DISMISSING without prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall notify petitioner of the dismissal without prejudice.
DATE: July 22, 2009
ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.