Ronald J Smith v. Richard Alvarado, No. 5:2009cv01340 - Document 4 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ON A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS by Judge Margaret M. Morrow; IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered SUMMARILY DISMISSING without prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall notify petitioner of the dismissal without prejudice. (jy)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 RONALD J. SMITH, aka RON J. SMITH, 12 Petitioner, 13 vs. 14 RICHARD ALVARADO, 15 Respondent. ) Case No. EDCV 09-1340-MMM(RC) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ON A ) PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ) ) ) 16 17 On July 15, 2009, petitioner Reginald J. Smith, aka Ron J. Smith, 18 a person in state custody proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a 19 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the 20 revocation of his parole on March 25, 2009. 21 petition shows on its face that petitioner has not filed a petition 22 for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. 23 at 4-6. Petition at 2. The Petition 24 25 DISCUSSION 26 A state prisoner must exhaust his state court remedies before 27 petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. 28 §§ 2254(b) and (c); O Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-43, 1 119 S. Ct. 1728, 1731, 144 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1999); Rose v. Lundy, 2 455 U.S. 509, 515-16, 102 S. Ct. 1198, 1201-02, 71 L. Ed. 2d 379 3 (1982); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 4 984-85 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 274 (1998). 5 exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine, now codified [at] 28 U.S.C. 6 §§ 2254(b) and (c), reflects a policy of federal-state comity, an 7 accommodation of our federal system designed to give the State an 8 initial opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its 9 prisoners' federal rights. The Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 10 92 S. Ct. 509, 512, 30 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1971) (internal quotation marks, 11 citations and footnote omitted); O Sullivan, 528 U.S. at 844-45, 12 119 S. Ct. at 1732; Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996). 13 The exhaustion doctrine is principally designed to protect the state 14 courts' role in the enforcement of federal law and prevent disruption 15 of state judicial proceedings. 16 1203. Rose, 455 U.S. at 518, 102 S. Ct. at 17 18 Here, petitioner has not petitioned the California Supreme Court 19 for collateral relief. Since petitioner s claims have not been 20 exhausted in the state courts, the pending habeas petition must be 21 dismissed without prejudice. 22 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2554-55, 115 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1991); Lundy, 455 U.S. at 23 522, 102 S. Ct. at 1205. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731, 24 25 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 26 States Courts provides that "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition 27 and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 28 relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and 2 1 direct the clerk to notify petitioner. The instant petition shows 2 that petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies regarding 3 the claims in the pending petition; thus, the petition must be 4 dismissed without prejudice. 5 6 ORDER 7 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered SUMMARILY DISMISSING 8 without prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 9 10 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall notify petitioner of the dismissal without prejudice. 12 13 DATE: August 21, 2009 MARGARET M. MORROW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 PRESENTED BY: 16 DATE: July 22, 2009 17 18 19 20 /S/ ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN ROSALYN M. CHAPMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE R&Rs-MDOs\09-1340.mdo 7/22/09 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.