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
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JMA\06cv2411-exhnot.wpd, 1176
-1-
06cv2411
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARCEL O. GOMEZ,
Civil No.
06-2411 H (JMA)
Petitioner,
NOTICE REGARDING POSSIBLE
FAILURE TO EXHAUST AND ONE-
YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.
Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. THIS NOTICE PROVIDES IMPORTANT INFORMATION RELATING TO PETITIONS
AND IS ISSUED IN EVERY CASE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PETITIONER ALLEGES FULL
EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES.
REQUIREMENT THAT PETITIONER EXHAUST STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES
Generally, applications for writs of habeas corpus that contain unexhausted claims must
be dismissed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). However, federal courts have the
discretion to deny a habeas application on the merits notwithstanding a petitioner’s failure to
fully exhaust state judicial remedies. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(b)(2) (West Supp. 2006);
Liegakos v. Cooke, 106 F.3d 1381, 1388 (7th Cir. 1997). To exhaust state judicial remedies, a
California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court with a fair opportunity to
rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),
Case 3:06-cv-02411-H-CAB Document 3 Filed 11/07/2006 Page 1 of 3
Gomez v. People of California
Doc. 3
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
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JMA\06cv2411-exhnot.wpd, 1176
-2-
06cv2411
(c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). The petitioner must have raised the very
same federal claims brought in the federal petition before the state supreme court. See Duncan
v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995). For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim
that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due p