(HC) Glave v. Horn

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BEAU GLAVE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01253-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE COURT REMEDIES 14 P. HORN, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 challenging pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 20 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 21 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 22 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 23 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 24 A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 25 must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based 26 on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s 27 alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 1 | providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 2 | presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 3 | Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 4 If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court cannot 5 | proceed to the merits of his claims. In the petition, Petitioner challenges a disciplinary 6 | proceeding on various grounds. (ECF No. 1 at 3-6.') The petition indicates that Petitioner 7 | exhausted his administrative remedies, but that he has not filed any petitions, application, or 8 | motions regarding this issue in any court. Ud. at 7.) It is possible, however, that Petitioner 9 | presented his claims to the California Supreme Court and failed to indicate this to the Court. 10 | Thus, Petitioner must inform the Court whether each of his claims has been presented to the 11 | California Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed in 12 | the California Supreme Court that includes the claims now presented and a file stamp showing 13 | that the petition was indeed filed in the California Supreme Court. 14 Accordingly, Petitioner is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within THIRTY (30) 15 | days from the date of service of this order why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to 16 | exhaust state remedies. 17 Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order may result in a recommendation 18 | for dismissal of the petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (a petitioner’s 19 | failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order may result in a dismissal of the action). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf Se 22 | Dated: _November 24, 2025 _ eS STANLEY A. BOONE 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28 | | page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.