1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WALTER SAYLES, Case No. 21-cv-08243-JD

8 Petitioner, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 6 10 ALAMEDA COUNTY, SUPERIOR COURT, 11 Respondent.

12 13 Walter Sayles, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 14 pursuant to

. Petitioner was convicted in Alameda County, which is in this 15 district, so venue is proper here. See

(d). 16 DISCUSSION 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 19 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 20 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

(a); Rose v. 21 Hodges,

(1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 22 requirements. McFarland v. Scott,

(1994). An application for a federal writ of 23 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 24 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 25 each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases,

. “‘[N]otice’ 26 pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 27 of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d LEGAL CLAIMS

5 Petitioner challenges his 2012 conviction where he pled guilty to four counts of second-

3 degree robbery. However, he has only filed a habeas petition in the state superior court. Prisoners

4 in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or

5 length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct

6 appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair

5 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). Before he may proceed 9 with this case, petitioner must fully exhaust his claims in state court.

10 CONCLUSION

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED. This action is

DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner may refile this case once he has fully exhausted his

B claims. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

3 4 2. The Clerk is requested to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 615 Dated: March 21, 2022 16

17

18 JAMES THyXATO 19 United Sates District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28