Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jojola v. Riverside Superior Court

United States District Court, C.D. California

September 20, 2019

TEDD E. JOJOLA, Plaintiff,
v.
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant.

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

          HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner Tedd E. Jojola, a California state prisoner.

         II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court is required to conduct a preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Pursuant to Rule 4, this court must summarily dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”

         The Court’s review of the Petition, the Court’s own records, and public records reveals that Petitioner has used the wrong form, filed a Petition that is incomplete, and which fails to meet the exhaustion requirement.[1" name="FN1" id="FN1">1] For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within twenty-eight (28) days of the service of this Order why the instant Petition should not be dismissed.

         II. THE PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION

         A. Wrong Form

         Petitioner submitted the Petition on a form that has not been approved by this Court. “A petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 shall be submitted on the forms approved and supplied by the Court.” Central District of California Local Rule 83-16.1. The Central District of California requires that habeas petitions be submitted on Form CV-69. This Court adheres to the practice of asking a petitioner who has not used the local form to submit his petition on the local form. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 2(d), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Advisory Committee Notes – 2004 Amendment (acknowledging this practice with respect to the standard “national” form). Therefore, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to serve with this Order Central District forms CV-69 and CV-76A.

         B. Insufficient Information

         Petitioner has not completed the Petition with sufficient essential information for the Court to proceed. A petition for habeas corpus must state the facts supporting each ground for relief. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 2(c)(1)–(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (“The petition must (1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground . . . .”). While incomplete information is not generally outcome determinative of a habeas action, in this instance, providing important details may provide the Court with the necessary information to allow the case to proceed to service on the respondent. For example, without the Petitioner’s date of sentence, the Court cannot determine whether the Petition is timely. Further, without Petitioner’s criminal case number, the Court cannot fully evaluate whether Petitioner has exhausted all available state judicial remedies. Therefore, Petitioner has used the wrong form and has failed to provide sufficient information and, until Petitioner has done so, this Court cannot entertain his Petition.

         III. THE PETITION APPEARS TO BE WHOLLY UNEXHAUSTED

         There is no question that the exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). “Under the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner challenging a state conviction must first attempt to present his claim in state court.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011); see also O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (“[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”). The Court may raise the failure to exhaust issue sua sponte and may summarily dismiss on these grounds. See Aiken v. Spalding, 1 F.2d 881');">841 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981) (noting that a district court can dismiss a habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust); Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 855–56 (9th Cir. 1992) (“In habeas corpus cases . . . federal courts may consider sua sponte whether the defendant has exhausted state remedies . . . .”).

         As a matter of comity, a federal court will not entertain a habeas petition unless the petitioner has exhausted the available state judicial remedies on every ground for relief presented in the petition. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518–22 (1982). A petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that he has exhausted available state remedies. See e.g., Cartwright, 650 F.2d at 1104. To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner must “fairly present federal claims to the state courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its petitioners’ federal rights.” Duncan v. Henry, 13 U.S. 364');">513 U.S. 364, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.