Adams v. People of the State of California

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02609

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 7/21/15.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 CERVIS ERNEST ADAMS, 4 Case No. 15-cv-02609-DMR (PR) Petitioner, 5 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 6 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 7 CALIFORNIA, 8 Respondent. 9 Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 10 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 11 This action has been assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge. 12 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with written consent of all parties, a magistrate judge may Northern District of California United States District Court 13 conduct all proceedings in a case, including entry of judgment.1 Appeal will be directly to the 14 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). 15 On June 22, 2015, Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Dkt. 16 4. 17 In the instant petition, Petitioner admits that he did not exhaust his state remedies by 18 presenting his claims to the highest level of review—the California Supreme Court—before filing 19 his petition. Dkt. 1 at 3. 20 Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge in federal habeas proceedings either the 21 fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies by 22 23 1 A magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the parties to enter dispositive rulings 24 and judgments in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in cases such as this one, where the petitioner has consented but the respondent has not been served, "all parties have 25 consented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)," and a magistrate judge therefore "'may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.'" 26 Gaddy v. McDonald, No. CV 11-08271 SS, 2011 WL 5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995)); 27 Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C 10-04470 LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2011)); cf. Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge 28 had jurisdiction to dismiss action as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants had not yet been served and therefore were not parties). 1 presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and 2 every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 3 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). If available state remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, the 4 district court must dismiss the petition. Id. at 510; Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 5 1988). A dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to returning to federal court after 6 exhausting available state remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 7 1995). 8 Because Petitioner did not present his claims to the state supreme court for review, either 9 in a petition for review or in a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus, his federal petition is 10 unexhausted and must be DISMISSED. This dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner returning 11 to state court to exhaust his state remedies and then filing a new federal habeas corpus petition. 12 Should he do so, he is advised to file his new federal habeas corpus petition as soon as possible Northern District of California United States District Court 13 after his state court proceedings have concluded. The court makes no ruling at this time on the 14 issue of the timeliness of any future federal petition. 15 Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 2. The Clerk of the Court shall 16 enter judgment, terminate any pending motions, and close the file. 17 This Order terminates Docket No. 2. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: July 21, 2015 20 ______________________________________ DONNA M. RYU 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 CERVIS ERNEST ADAMS, 4 Case No. 4:15-cv-02609-DMR Plaintiff, 5 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 7 CALIFORNIA, 8 Defendant. 9 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 10 District Court, Northern District of California. 11 12 Northern District of California That on July 21, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing United States District Court 13 said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 14 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 15 receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 16 17 Cervis Ernest Adams ID: AM4446 480 Alto Road 18 San Diego, CA 92179 19 20 Dated: July 21, 2015 21 Richard W. Wieking 22 Clerk, United States District Court 23 24 25 By:________________________ 26 Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable DONNA M. RYU 27 28 3