UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 13, 2012
WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON,
MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Petitioner filed a motion for injunctive relief challenging the January 26, 2012 parole conditions imposed on him in state court. In order to bring federal habeas corpus claims concerning state judgments, however, he must first exhaust those claims in state court. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). This exhaustion requirement is based on the importance of allowing state courts the opportunity to correct alleged constitutional violations before they can be addressed in federal courts. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971).
Petitioner fails to show that he has exhausted his claims in state court. (Doc. No. 52.) The Court is therefore prevented from evaluating them. Petitioner's motion for injunctive relief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.