1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JESUS MEIGAREJO JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-01704-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

15 Respondent.

16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 On December 11, 2023, the Court received the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus 20 wherein Petitioner challenges his 2022 Fresno County Superior Court convictions. (ECF No. 1 at 21 1.)1 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a habeas 22 petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered to file a 23 response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is 24 not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 25 United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 26 Here, it appears that Petitioner may have failed to exhaust the claims that he raises in the 27 instant petition. A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas 1 | corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is 2 | based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the 3 | state’s alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); 4 | Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 5 | providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 6 | presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 7 | Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 8 If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court cannot 9 | proceed to the merits of his claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Thus, Petitioner must inform the 10 | Court whether each of his claims has been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if 11 | possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed in the California Supreme Court that 12 | includes the claims now presented and a file stamp showing that the petition was indeed filed in 13 | the California Supreme Court. 14 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that within THIRTY (30) days from the 15 | date of service of this order, Petitioner SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be 16 | dismissed for failure to 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. F- 2 ee 22 | Dated: _December 29, 2023 _ ef 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28