1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES TROTTER, ) CASE NO. CV 19-4478-JVS (PJW) ) 11 Petitioner, ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING 12 v. ) CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ) 13 UNKNOWN, ) ) 14 Respondent. ) ) 15 16 On May 15, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 17 Corpus, seeking to challenge state convictions from 1991 and 1992. 18 (Petition at 1.) He appears to contend that he was wrongfully 19 arrested and denied a jury trial. (Petition at 4-5.) Petitioner 20 indicates that he did not appeal his convictions or file a petition 21 challenging the convictions in the state supreme court. (Petition at 22 1-3.) On July 10, 2019, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause as 23 to why the Petition should not be dismissed as unexhausted and 24 untimely. Petitioner has not filed a response to the Order to Show 25 Cause or requested an extension of time to do so. 26 As a matter of comity between state and federal courts, a federal 27 court will generally not address the merits of a habeas corpus 28 petition unless the petitioner has first exhausted his state remedies. 1 Rose v. Lundy,

(1982). Indeed, Congress has 2 instructed that this Court cannot grant a habeas petition unless the 3 claims have been exhausted or there is no available state corrective 4 process. See

(b)(1). To exhaust state remedies, a 5 petitioner must fairly present his contentions to the state courts, 6 and the highest court of the state must dispose of them on the merits. 7 O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,

(1999). 8 In this case, it is clear that Petitioner has not exhausted his 9 state remedies with regard to the claims raised in the Petition. 10 Because his federal Petition is completely unexhausted, it must be 11 dismissed without prejudice to re-file once Petitioner has exhausted 12 his claims. See Rasberry v. Garcia,

(9th Cir. 13 2006) (“Once a district court determines that a habeas petition 14 contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to 15 the petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the 16 habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”). Accordingly, the Petition 17 is hereby dismissed.1 18 Further, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a 19 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or that 20 the court erred in its procedural ruling and, therefore, a certificate 21 of appealability will not issue in this action. See 28 U.S.C. 22 23 24 25 26 1 The Court need not and does not decide whether the Petition was timely. It appears, however, that Petitioner’s claims would be 27 untimely under the federal one-year statute of limitations absent tolling or other justification for Petitioner’s delay in raising them 28 in federal court. 2 2253(c)(2)7 Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)i Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED 4 DATED: September 11, 2019. [y 6 ALU 7 pee Vb JAMES V. SELNA 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Presented by: 25 , 26 Jeeued g Lir4 PATRICK J. WALSH —i‘—S™S 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 C:\Users\isabelmartinez\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\VT0Y4E57\Magistrate - Trotter Order Denying COA.wpd 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4