The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
(1) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and, (2) NOTIFYING PETITIONER OF DISMISSAL OPTIONS TO AVOID FURTHER
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has neither paid the filing fee nor filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, and the Petition is therefore subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement. In addition, although Petitioner indicates that she has presented claims 4-6 to the state supreme court, there is no indication that the remaining claims were presented to that court. Accordingly, the Petition is also subject to dismissal as a "mixed" petition, that is, one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The Court will notify Petitioner of her options to avoid a future dismissal of a mixed petition.
FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT
Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, she must submit a copy of this order along with the requisite fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis no later than June 24, 2013, to have the case reopened.
In addition, Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion of her state court remedies as to all claims presented in the Petition. Although Petitioner indicates that she has presented claims 4-6 to the state supreme court, there is no indication that the remaining claims have been presented to the state supreme court. (See Pet. at 3-14.) If the Petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, it is a "mixed" petition and subject to dismissal. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 514, 520-21 (1982) (holding that "a district court must dismiss such 'mixed' petitions, leaving the petitioner with the choice of returning to state court to exhaust his claims or of amending or resubmitting the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims to the district court.")
The exhaustion requirement is satisfied by providing the state courts with a "fair opportunity" to rule on Petitioner's constitutional claims. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). In most instances, a claim is exhausted once it is presented to a state's highest court, either on direct appeal or through state collateral proceedings.*fn1 See Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir. 2002).
To avoid the Court dismissing the Petition on its own accord once Petitioner satisfies the filing fee requirement and has the case reopened, Petitioner may choose one of these options.
i) First Option: Demonstrate Exhaustion
Petitioner may file further papers with this Court to demonstrate that she has in fact exhausted claim 4. If Petitioner chooses this option, her papers are due by June 24, 2013.
ii) Second Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition
Petitioner may move to voluntarily dismiss her entire federal petition and return to state court to exhaust her unexhausted claims. Petitioner may then file a new federal petition containing only exhausted claims. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21 (stating that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may dismiss his petition to "return to state court to exhaust his claims"). If Petitioner chooses this second option, she must so inform the Court no later than June 24, 2013.
Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be filed before expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. Ordinarily, a petitioner has one year from when her conviction became final to file her federal petition, unless she can show that statutory or equitable "tolling" applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).*fn2 The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that "an application is 'properly filed' when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings."); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a state application for post-conviction relief which is ultimately dismissed as untimely was neither "properly filed" nor "pending" while it was under ...