1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GABRIEL ELENA LOPEZ, Case No. 23-cv-06017-JST

8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 9 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 10 CHACE ANDRES, APPEALABILITY 11 Respondent. Re: ECF No.

12 13 Petitioner, an inmate at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, filed this pro se action seeking 14 a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 15 DISMISSES this habeas petition as unexhausted, and DENIES a certificate of appealability. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Petitioner filed this pro se habeas petition pursuant to

, challenging a 18 conviction from Napa County Superior Court. On July 31, 2024, the Court found that the claims 19 presented in this petition are unexhausted, granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as 20 wholly unexhausted, and ordered Petitioner to inform the Court by August 28, 2024 whether he 21 wished to (1) voluntarily dismiss this petition and return to state court to exhaust his claims before 22 filing a new federal petition presenting exhausted clams; or (2) seek a Rhines stay. ECF No. 16. 23 The deadline to inform the Court how Petitioner wishes to proceed, and Petitioner has not 24 communicated with the Court. A federal district court must dismiss a federal habeas petition 25 which is wholly unexhausted. See

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

, 26 515-16 (1982); Rhines v. Weber,

(2005); Jiminez v. Rice,

, 481 27 (9th Cir. 2001). As discussed in the Court’s July 31, 2024, none of the claims presented in this 1 Court therefore DISMISSES this habeas petition for failure to exhaust court remedies. 2 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court 3 that issues an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of 4 appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A judge shall grant a certificate of 5 appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 6 || right,”

(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. 7

§ 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the 8 showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that 9 || reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable 10 or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). Here, Petitioner has not made such a 11 showing, and, accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied. 12 CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this habeas petition for failure to exhaust 14 || court remedies, and DENIES a certificate of appealability. Judgment is entered in favor of 3 15 Respondent and against Petitioner. The Clerk shall close the case. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 17 Dated: October 2, 2024 . 18 Ope Sy JON S. TIGAR 19 ited States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28