You're viewing Docket Item 4 from the case James Scotty Wilder v. People of the State of California et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 5:13-cv-01234-DDP-RZ Document 4 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:21

O

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SCOTTY WILDER,

Petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. ED CV 13-1234 DDP (RZ)

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Court will dismiss the action summarily because Petitioner expressly
indicates that his sole claim has not undergone the required state-court exhaustion. See
generally 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).

Generally, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and
any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the
judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be
notified.” More specifically, the Ninth Circuit indicates that a district court presented with
an entirely unexhausted petition may, or even must, dismiss the action. Raspberry v.
Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines that a
habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to the
petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:13-cv-01234-DDP-RZ Document 4 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:22

exhaust.”), citing Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court is
“obliged to dismiss [an entirely unexhausted petition] immediately” once respondent
moves for such dismissal).

Here, Petitioner asserts one claim. He admits that he not submitted it to the

California Supreme Court. Pet. ¶¶ 8(a)(2)-(4). A Raspberry dismissal is in order.
Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED:July 30, 2013


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEAN D. PREGERSON

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 2 -