holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted
How later courts described this case
- holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RAMELLO RANDLE, Case No. 24-cv-07930-RFL
Petitioner,
ORDER REOPENING ACTION AND
v. DISMISSING PETITION WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT, Re: Dkt. No. 11
Respondent.
This pro se habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice after Petitioner failed to file
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. (Order of Dismissal, Dkt. No. 8.)
Since the dismissal, Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that the Court also
construes as a motion to reopen. (Dkt. No. 11) The case is reopened, and the Court will review
the petition. Petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County, which is in this district, so venue
is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
The petition is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended petition or a motion for a stay
on or before April 28, 2025. Failure to file a proper amended petition or a motion for a stay by
April 28, 2025, or a failure to comply in every respect with the instructions given in this order,
will result in the dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
BACKGROUND
A jury found Petitioner guilty of murder with the special circumstance of lying in wait.
(Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) On September 24, 2024, Petitioner was sentenced to life without the
possibility of parole and 115 years. (Id.) Also on September 24, 2024, Petitioner submitted this
federal petition to the Ninth Circuit. (Id. at 1.) On November 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit
transferred the case to this Court because an application for a writ of habeas corpus must be
made to the district court. (Dkt. No. 2 at 1.) The case was dismissed without prejudice on
February 4, 2025, due to Petitioner’s failure to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. At
the time of filing the petition, Petitioner had not appealed the conviction or filed any petitions in
state court. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.)
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).
A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show
cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the
applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is
appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably
incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.
1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).
B. Legal Claims
The specific claims are difficult to understand, but it appears that as grounds for federal
habeas relief Petitioner asserts that: (1) the trial court imposed an illegal sentence that was also
racially discriminatory; (2) trial counsel was ineffective and the trial court erred by not providing
different counsel; and (3) the prosecutor withheld critical evidence in violation of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Petitioner filed this petition on the day that he was sentenced by the trial court, and he
indicates that he has not pursued any appeals in state court. Before he may challenge either the
fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in this Court, Petitioner must present to the
California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise in this Court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455
U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted).
The general rule is that a federal district court must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing
any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. Id. The appropriate time to
assess whether a prisoner has exhausted his state remedies is when the federal petition is filed,
not when it comes on for hearing in the district court or court of appeals, Gatlin v. Madding, 189
F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999); Brown v. Maass, 11 F.3d 914, 915 (9th Cir. 1993), and if the
petitioner exhausts after filing, he can bring that up in a subsequent petition, Gatlin, 189 F.3d at
889.
It appears that petitioner has presented an entirely unexhausted petition. The petition is
dismissed with leave to amend for Petitioner to provide more information and demonstrate that
he has exhausted these claims or discuss if any state appeals are pending.
Petitioner may also file a motion for a stay. In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) the
United States Supreme Court found that a stay and abeyance of a mixed federal petition should
be available only in the limited circumstance that good cause is shown for a failure to have first
exhausted the claims in state court, that the claim or claims at issue potentially have merit, and
that there has been no indication that petitioner has been intentionally dilatory in pursuing the
litigation. Id. at 277-78. A district court has the discretion to stay a petition containing only
unexhausted claims under the circumstances set forth in Rhines. Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907,
909 (9th Cir. 2016). If Petitioner wishes to stay this action, he shall file a motion addressing the
Rhines factors. Regardless of how Petitioner chooses to proceed in this Court, he must diligently
seek relief in state court to properly exhaust his claims.
CONCLUSION
The action is REOPENED. The Clerk is directed to modify the docket accordingly. The
judgment and the order of dismissal are VACATED. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED.
The petition is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended petition or a motion for a stay
on or before April 28, 2025. The amended petition must include the caption and civil case
number used in this order (24-7930 RFL (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED PETITION on
the first page. Failure to file a response in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of
this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) without further notice to Petitioner.
It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of
Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for an
extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2025
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge