United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
JOHN E. McDERMOTT, Magistrate Judge.
On October 30, 2013, Tony John Caracci ("Petitioner"), a prisoner in state custody, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 ("Petition") in the Eastern District of California. On November 4, 2013, the Petition was transferred to this Court.
On January 21, 2014, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition ("Motion to Dismiss"), arguing that the Petition should be dismissed on the grounds that all of the claims are unexhausted and no proper respondent is named. Petitioner did not file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, despite the fact that the Court sua sponte extended the deadline for him to do so.
The matter is ready for decision. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice as fully unexhausted.
In Los Angeles County Superior Court case number NA089085, a jury found Petitioner guilty of two counts of first degree residential burglary (Cal. Penal Code § 459) and one count of receiving stolen property (Cal. Penal Code § 496(a)). Petitioner also admitted that he had been convicted of a serious felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law (Cal. Penal Code §§ 667(b)-(i), 1170.12(a)-(d)). On September 28, 2011, Petitioner was sentenced to a total term of 18 years and four months in state prison. (Respondent's Lodged Document ("LD") 1, 2.)
On direct review, the California Court of Appeal modified Petitioner's fines and fees, but otherwise affirmed the judgment, on January 3, 2013. (LD 2.)
The public docket indicates that Petitioner did not file a petition for review in the California Supreme Court ("CSC"). (See http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov; see also Petition at 3; Motion to Dismiss at 3.)
Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal, case number B253251, which was denied on January 23, 2014. However, Petitioner does not appear to have filed a habeas petition in the CSC. (See http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov.)
I. THIS ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES
A. Applicable Law
As a matter of comity, a federal court will not grant habeas relief to a petitioner held in state custody unless he has exhausted the available state judicial remedies on every ground presented in the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Rose v. Lundy , 455 U.S. 509, 518-22 (1982). "[T]he exhaustion doctrine is designed to give the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims before those claims are presented to the federal courts." O'Sullivan v. Boerckel , 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); see also Baldwin v. Reese , 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (to give the State the ...