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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBERT REGINALD ESTRADA,
Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Respondent(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 06-4780 CRB (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Santa Clara County
Jail, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a
December 28, 2005 judgment of conviction from the Superior Court of the State
of California in and for the County of Santa Clara.
Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal
habeas corpus proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first
required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through
collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair
opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in
federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). Petitioner has not done so. He has
Case 3:06-cv-04780-CRB Document 2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 2
Estrada v. People of the State of California et al
Doc. 2
Dockets.Justia.com
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
not presented the Supreme Court of California with an opportunity to consider
and rule on his claims. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)
(state’s highest court must be given opportunity to rule on claims even if review
is discretionary); Larche v. Simons, 53 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 1995)
(Supreme Court of California must be given at least one opportunity to review
state prisoners' federal claims). The petition for a writ of habeas corpus tmust be
DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after state judicial remedies are
exhausted.
The clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 18, 2006