You're viewing Docket Item 7 from the case Larry Jenkins v. Grounds. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:13-cv-04604-SJO-SS Document 7 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

CV 13-04604 SJO (SS)

Title:

Larry Jenkins v. Grounds

Date: July 30, 2013

Page 1 of 2

DOCKET ENTRY:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

PRESENT:

HONORABLE SUZANNE H. SEGAL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Marlene Ramirez
Deputy Clerk


None
Court Reporter/Recorder

None
Tape No.

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PETITIONER:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR RESPONDENT:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)

On May 27, 2013, Larry Jenkins (“Petitioner”), a California state prisoner proceeding
pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the
“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Petition, however, appears to be completely
unexhausted on its face.

Petitioner is reminded that a state prisoner must exhaust his state court remedies
before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1)(A); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842, 119 S. Ct. 1728, 144 L. Ed. 2d
1 (1999). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner must fairly present his
federal claims in the state courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and
correct alleged violations of the prisoner’s federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,
365, 115 S. Ct. 887, 130 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1995) (per curiam). A habeas petitioner must give
the state courts “one full opportunity” to decide a federal claim by carrying out “one
complete round” of the state’s appellate process in order to properly exhaust a claim.
O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. He must present his claims to the highest state court with
jurisdiction to consider it or demonstrate that no state remedy remains available. See
Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Case 2:13-cv-04604-SJO-SS Document 7 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.

CV 13-04604 SJO (SS)

Title:

Larry Jenkins v. Grounds

Date: July 30, 2013

Page 2 of 2

Here, Petitioner states that he filed for direct review with the California Court of
Appeal and filed a habeas petition with the same court. (Petition at 3-4). Petitioner does not
state that he raised any claims before the California Supreme Court. Therefore, Petitioner
does not appear to have exhausted his claims with the state courts.

Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within fourteen (14)
days of the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust.
Instead of filing a response to the instant Order, Petitioner may request a voluntary
dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of
Dismissal form is attached for Petitioner’s convenience. However, Petitioner is advised
that any dismissed claims may be later subject to the statute of limitations under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), as amended by the AEDPA, “[a] 1-year period of limitation shall
apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to
the judgment of a State court.”

Petitioner is expressly warned that failure to timely file a declaration or other
response to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed
with prejudice for his failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b).

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner at his

address of record.



MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___