United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ALICIA G. ROSENBERG, Magistrate Judge.
In 1989, a Los Angeles County jury convicted Petitioner of murder. (First Amended Petition ("FAP") at 2.) The court sentenced him to 16 years to life. ( Id. )
On July 21, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 30, 2014, the court issued an order to show cause ("OSC") why it should not recommend dismissal of the petition based on expiration of the statute of limitations. (Dkt. No. 4.) Petitioner did not file a response.
On September 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a FAP. Based on the FAP, it still appeared that the one-year statute of limitations had expired. Accordingly, on September 22, 2014, discharged the first OSC and issued a second OSC based on the FAP. (Dkt. No. 8.)
On November 20, 2014, Petitioner filed a response and a request for appointment of counsel. Petitioner alleges he is part of the prison mental health program and suffers from a "mental illness." (Response at 1, 3; see also Dkt. No. 6 at 1-3 (Petitioner Declaration).) The second OSC (Dkt. No. 8) is DISCHARGED. See Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 2003).
The California Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's conviction on June 4, 1992. California Appellate Courts Case Information online disposition in Case No. B044314. Petitioner did not file a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. (FAP at 3.)
In 2014, Petitioner filed three habeas petitions in the California Court of Appeal. All petitions were denied. See California Appellate Courts Case Information online docket in Case Nos. B255194, B256099 and B256347.
Petitioner appears not to have filed any habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. Accordingly, Petitioner shall show cause why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The AEDPA provides that a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by a person in state custody "shall not be granted unless it appears that - (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
Exhaustion requires that Petitioner's contentions be fairly presented to the state's highest court, in this case the California Supreme Court. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir. 1994). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that he described to the California Supreme Court both the operative facts and the federal legal theory on which his ...