Brooks v. Fox, 2:19-cv-00879 JAM GGH P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190926769
Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested that this action be dismissed until petitioner has exhausted all state remedies. ECF No. 32. Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. Petitioner has indicated he is seeking to challenge his parole denial by the Board of Parole Hearings. ECF No. 32 at 3. A prisoner
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested that this action be dismissed until petitioner has exhausted all state remedies. ECF No. 32. Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. Petitioner has indicated he is seeking to challenge his parole denial by the Board of Parole Hearings. ECF No. 32 at 3. A prisoner c..
More
ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested that this action be dismissed until petitioner has exhausted all state remedies. ECF No. 32. Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. Petitioner has indicated he is seeking to challenge his parole denial by the Board of Parole Hearings. ECF No. 32 at 3.
A prisoner challenging a parole decision is first eligible to file a federal habeas petition only after state habeas proceedings are complete. Before state prisoners can file a federal habeas petition, they "must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional [claims] by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process." O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). Because California does not provide for direct appellate review of parole board decisions, state habeas review is the first and only opportunity the California state courts have to hear a prisoner's constitutional claims. State prisoners challenging parole board decisions must therefore exhaust state habeas relief before they file a federal habeas petition.
Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). No answer or motion to dismiss having been filed, the court construes petitioner's request to dismiss as a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's request to withdraw writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 32) is construed as a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); and
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
Source: Leagle
