1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KENYON DARRELL BROWN, ) CASE NO. ED CV 19-2507-RGK (PJW) ) 11 Petitioner, ) [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING ) PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 12 v. ) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF ) APPEALABILITY 13 PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) 14 Respondent. ) ) 15 16 On December 26, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was 18 subsequently transferred to this court. In it, he challenges a 10- 19 year sentence imposed by the San Bernardino County Superior Court in 20 November 2019. (Petition at 1.) Petitioner notes in the Petition 21 that his appeal of that sentence is currently pending in the 22 California Court of Appeal. (Petition at 5, 6.) For the following 23 reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 24 As a matter of comity between state and federal courts, a federal 25 court will generally not address the merits of a habeas corpus 26 petition unless the petitioner has exhausted his state remedies. Rose 27 v. Lundy,

(1982); see also 28 U.S.C. 28 § 2254(b)(1). To exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must present contentions to the state courts, and the highest court of the state must dispose of them on the merits. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 838, 842, 844-45 (1999). 4 Because Petitioner’s appeal is still pending, his claims are 5 |} unexhausted. For that reason, the Petition is dismissed without 6 || prejudice. See Rasberry v. Garcia,

(9th Cir. 7 2006) (*Once a district court determines that a habeas petition 8 || contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the 10 |} habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”). Further, the Court finds 11] that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 12 || constitutional right or that the Court erred in its procedural ruling 13 |} and, therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in this case. See

(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)i Miller-El v. 15 |! Cockrell,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

, 16 484 (2000). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED 18 DATED: February 12, 2020 19 dj J KQecrgas 20 R. GARY KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 || Presented by: ood 9. Lr%6 | SY PATRICK J. WALSH 27 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 3 eee ennnncme snes NNN NCES .Out look\VTOY4E57\Ord_Dism_Pet.w