# Kenyon Darrell Brown v. People of State of California

> District Court, C.D. California · February 12, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10036983

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** February 12, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10036983

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 KENYON DARRELL BROWN, ) CASE NO. ED CV 19-2507-RGK (PJW)
)
11 Petitioner, ) [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING
) PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
12 v. ) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
) APPEALABILITY
13 PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
14 Respondent. )
)
15
16 On December 26, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of
17 Habeas Corpus in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was
18 subsequently transferred to this court. In it, he challenges a 10-
19 year sentence imposed by the San Bernardino County Superior Court in
20 November 2019. (Petition at 1.) Petitioner notes in the Petition
21 that his appeal of that sentence is currently pending in the
22 California Court of Appeal. (Petition at 5, 6.) For the following
23 reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice.
24 As a matter of comity between state and federal courts, a federal
25 court will generally not address the merits of a habeas corpus
26 petition unless the petitioner has exhausted his state remedies. Rose
27 v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-22 (1982); see also 28 U.S.C.
28 § 2254(b)(1). To exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must present
contentions to the state courts, and the highest court of the
state must dispose of them on the merits. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526
838, 842, 844-45 (1999).
4 Because Petitioner’s appeal is still pending, his claims are
5 |} unexhausted. For that reason, the Petition is dismissed without
6 || prejudice. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.
7 2006) (*Once a district court determines that a habeas petition
8 || contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to
petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the
10 |} habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”). Further, the Court finds
11] that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
12 || constitutional right or that the Court erred in its procedural ruling
13 |} and, therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue in this
case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)i Miller-El v.
15 |! Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
16 484 (2000).
17 IT IS SO ORDERED
18 DATED: February 12, 2020
19 dj J KQecrgas
20 R. GARY KLAUSNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24 || Presented by:
ood 9. Lr%6
| SY
PATRICK J. WALSH
27 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5 3 eee ennnncme snes NNN NCES .Out look\VTOY4E57\Ord_Dism_Pet.w

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10036983. Public record. Not legal advice.