From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Lamarque

United States District Court, N.D. California
Jul 3, 2002
No. C 02-2826 SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2002)

Opinion

No. C 02-2826 SI (pr)

July 3, 2002


JUDGMENT


This action is dismissed without prejudice because petitioner did not exhaust his state court remedies before filing his federal habeas petition.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Eugene Jones, an inmate at the Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 attacking his 1998 conviction in Contra Costa County Superior Court for murder, robbery and burglary. His petition discloses that he has not appealed his conviction. (Petition, p. 4, response to question 8.) His petition discloses that he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Contra Costa County Superior Court but did not file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of California. (Petition, p. 6.)

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas 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); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity to give the state "the initial `opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights."' Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted). A federal district court must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522.

Jones has not yet presented his claims to the Supreme Court of California for its consideration. Thus, he has not exhausted his state court remedies as to any of the claims contained in his federal habeas petition. This action therefore is DISMISSED. This dismissal is without prejudice to Jones filing a new petition after he exhausts his state court remedies as to every claim he presents in his federal petition.

Jones' in forma pauperis application is DENIED because he has enough money in his inmate trust account to pay the filing fee. (Docket # 4.) Jones must pay the $5.00 filing fee no later than August 2, 2002.


Summaries of

Jones v. Lamarque

United States District Court, N.D. California
Jul 3, 2002
No. C 02-2826 SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2002)
Case details for

Jones v. Lamarque

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE JONES, Petitioner, v. ANTHONY LAMARQUE, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Jul 3, 2002

Citations

No. C 02-2826 SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2002)