Opinion
No. C 00-4166 SI (pr)
December 14, 2000
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Bobby Tyrone Williams, a California state inmate incarcerated at the San Quentin State Prison, filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. His in forma pauperis application also is before the court for consideration.
Williams states in his petition that he was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court of violations of California Health Safety Code §§ 11351.5 and 11352. In response to a question about the date and terms of the sentence imposed, Williams wrote "May 2, 2000 to Sept. 17, 2000." Williams has not appealed from his conviction and has not filed any petitions for writ of habeas corpus in state court. See Petition, p. 3, responses to questions 8 and 9.
There are two problems in the petition. The first problem is that the petitioner did not exhaust his state court remedies before filing his federal petition. Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge either the fact or length of their confinement in federal court by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 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 issue they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), (c); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). If available state remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, the district court must dismiss the petition. See id. at 4-5. The petition discloses that Williams has not presented any claims to the California Supreme Court. He must present his claims to the California Supreme Court (in, for example, a petition for review or in a petition for writ of habeas corpus) before filing a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because Williams has not exhausted, his petition is DISMISSED.
The second problem is that the petition does not claim a violation of any particular provision of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. The federal writ of habeas corpus is available only to remedy a violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The writ cannot issue to correct mere errors of state law. In any future petition for writ of habeas corpus, Williams must identify the particular provisions of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States that were violated during his state court criminal proceedings. (For example, a petitioner who believes his attorney performed inadequately could describe the particular failings of counsel and then claim that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel as a result of these failings.) Williams' assertion that his "civil rights" were violated is not specific enough — he must identify the particular constitutional provision violated. The requirement of a federal law error ties together with the exhaustion requirement discussed in the paragraph above in that Williams can only raise claims of violations of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States that he already presented to the California Supreme Court. This court will not consider a claim unless Williams has presented that same claim to the California Supreme Court and given that court an opportunity to rule on it. Although the court normally would give a petitioner leave to amend his petition to identify the particular federal rights violated, that step is not appropriate in this case because the petition must be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to exhaust state court remedies, as described in the preceding paragraph.
Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED. He has sufficient funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee in this action.
After petitioner exhausts his state court remedies, he may file a new petition for writ of habeas corpus. He is cautioned not to file an amended petition in this action and not to use the case number for this action because this action is being closed today. If he files a new petition, he should put no case number on the first page, and should submit it with the $5.00 filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis application. At that time, the court will give the new petition a new case number.
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Order of Dismissal signed today, this action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.