Gonzalez v. Superior Court of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 where the petitioner failed to respond to an order to show cause regarding the exhaustion of state court remedies. The court lifted the stay and dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies, denying a certificate of appealability.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Lifted the stay in the case.“The stay in the case, (ECF No. 7), is LIFTED” | agree with court The court previously ordered the petitioner to show cause why the stay should not be lifted. The petitioner failed to respond to this order. Lifting the stay is a procedural step consistent with the court's prior directive and the petitioner's inaction. |
Dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies.“The case is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice for a failure to exhaust state judicial remedies.” | agree with court Federal habeas courts lack jurisdiction to hear claims that have not been exhausted in state court. The order recites that the petitioner failed to respond to an order to show cause and provided no indication of attempting to exhaust remedies. Dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy for failure to exhaust, allowing the petitioner to return after exhaustion. |
Denied a certificate of appealability.“A certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Slack v. McDaniel, finding that jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. Since the dismissal was based on a clear procedural defect (failure to exhaust) and the petitioner did not respond to the show cause order, the denial of a COA is appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural posture (failure to respond to show cause order) and applies the correct legal standard for dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust. It correctly cites Trimble to explain the effect of the dismissal and Slack to justify the denial of a certificate of appealability. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on inaction.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNESTO V. GONZALEZ, Case No.: 3:18-cv-02007-JAH-BGS 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) LIFTING STAY; 14 SULLIVAN, Warden, et al., 15 Respondents. (2) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 16 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 17 (ECF No. 1). 18 19 The history of this case has been fully set forth in the Court’s prior order to show 20 cause. (See ECF No. 13). Petitioner was ordered to show cause why the stay in this case 21 should not be lifting and the case dismissed for a failure to exhaust his state court remedies, 22 as previously ordered by this Court. (Id. at 2-3). To date, Petitioner has not responded to 23 the Court’s order to show cause, and there has been no indication that Petitioner has 24 attempted to exhaust his state judicial remedies. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 25 1. The stay in the case, (ECF No. 7), is LIFTED, and, 26 /// 27 28 l 2. The case is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice for a failure to 2 exhaust state judicial remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 3 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (A dismissal for failure to exhaust is not a bar to 4 returning to federal court after exhausting available state remedies). A 5 certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. See Rule 11(a) of the 6 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (requiring district court 7 to rule on certificate of appealability in same order that denies petition). 8 Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable 9 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right 10 and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 11 correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || DATED: March 30, 2023 15 16 JOIN A. HOUSTON UWITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28