Laine v. Bonta

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Laine v. Bonta

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JOSHUA LAINE, CC22MX643, Case No. 22-cv-01570-CRB (PR)

7 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR 8 v. FAILURE TO EXHAUST

9 ROB BONTA, State Attorney General, (ECF Nos. 2, 5 & 6) 10 Respondent.

11 Petitioner, a prisoner at the Contra Costa County Jail, has filed a pro se petition for a writ 12 of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging a February 16, 2022 conviction and sentence 13 from Contra Costa County Superior Court. Petitioner also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis 14 (IFP) under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

. 15 Based on his affidavit of poverty, petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is 16 GRANTED. But the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 must be dismissed for 17 failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. 18 Prisoners in custody pursuant to a state court judgment who wish to challenge collaterally 19 in federal habeas corpus proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first 20 required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral 21 proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the 22 merits of every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See

28 U.S.C. § 2254

(b)-(c). Petitioner 23 has not done so. His appeal was only recently filed in the California Court of Appeal and hence 24 neither that court nor the Supreme Court of California has had a fair opportunity to consider and 25 rule on his claims. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,

526 U.S. 838, 845

(1999) (state’s highest court 26 must be given opportunity to rule on claims even if review is discretionary); see also Sherwood v. 27 Tomkins,

716 F.2d 632, 634

(9th Cir. 1983) (exhaustion requirement is not satisfied if there is a ] The petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice to 2 || petitioner filing a new petition after exhausting state judicial remedies. Petitioner’s miscellaneous 3 motions for relief from the state court’s judgment (ECF Nos. 5 &6) are DISMISSED as moot. 4 The clerk shall close the case and terminate the motions appearing on ECF as items 5 number 2, 5 and 6. 6 IT ISSO ORDERED. 7 Dated: March 22, 2022 8 CHARLES R. BREYER 9 United States District Judge 10 1] 12

2B

15 16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown