1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 ANTOINE WILLIAMS, Case No. 20-cv-04614-JD 6 Petitioner, y ORDER OF DISMISSAL Re: Dkt. No. 2 8 SANTA CLARA COUNTY, 9 Respondent. 10 11 Petitioner, a detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas petition pursuant to

|| 2254. Petitioner was sent a notice that he had not paid the filing fee or submitted a complete

< 13 || application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). He was allowed twenty-eight days to

v 14 || either pay the fee or file a proper application with all the required documents. More than twenty- O 15 || eight days has passed and petitioner has not paid the fee or filed a complete application to proceed Q 16 || IFP. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice and petitioner’s incomplete motion to proceed

17 || IFP (Docket No. 2) is DENIED.' A certificate of appealability is DENIED. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: February 5, 2021 20 21 JAMES TO 22 United Stgfes District Judge 23 24 25 ' Petitioner is advised that, under principles of comity and federalism, federal courts generally do 26 || not intervene in ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris,

(1971). Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas 97 || proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state 2g || court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See

(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy,

(1982).