Price v. The Attorney General of the State of California et al

1
3:25-cv-3228-JLS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRANDON LYNELL PRICE,
Petitioner,
v.
JAMES HILL, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3228-JLS-KSC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
On November 5, 2025, Petitioner Brandon Lynell Price (“Petitioner”), an inmate
proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
See ECF No. 1. On November 25, 2025, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice
because Petitioner failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement. 	ECF No. 2. 	The Court
notified Petitioner that to have his case reopened, he must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or
to move to proceed in forma pauperis by January 19, 2026. 	Id. 	On December 5, 2025,
Petitioner paid the filing fee, and the case has been reopened.1 See ECF No. 3. 	As
discussed below, however, the Petition must be dismissed without prejudice.
/ / /
1 It appears the filing fee was received by the Clerk of Court on December 5, 2025, but due to an apparent
clerical error, the notice of payment was not entered onto the docket until February 10, 2026. See ECF
No. 3.
Case 3:25-cv-03228-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-3228-JLS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES
In his Petition, Petitioner raises several claims arising from his 2006 convictions in
San Diego Superior Court Case Nos. SCD170638 and SCD160800.2 ECF No. 1 at 1. A
state prisoner must exhaust his state court remedies before a federal court may consider
granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.
838, 842 (1999).
To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must “fairly present” his federal
claim to the state courts, i.e., give them a fair opportunity to consider and correct violations
of the prisoner’s federal rights. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Peterson
v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A state prisoner seeking
relief with respect to a California conviction is required to fairly present his federal claims
to the California Supreme Court. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (noting a
state prisoner must fairly present his claim(s) to a state supreme court having the power of
discretionary review); Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998).
Here, Petitioner states he has raised all the claims presented in his federal petition
in a petition for habeas corpus filed with the California Supreme Court. ECF No. 1 at 6–
11. 	However, Petitioner also concedes his state petition is still pending before the state
2 The Court notes that Petitioner has previously pursued federal habeas relief as to those convictions in
this Court. See Price v. Uribe, No. 10-cv-1357-H-WVG. The Court denied habeas relief in that case on
November 3, 2011. See id., ECF No. 41. A district court is generally barred from considering a successive
petition unless the Petitioner first obtains “authorization from the court of appeals before filing his new
petition with the district court.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)). 	But here, Petitioner states he was resentenced and a new judgment entered in his state
criminal cases on July 7, 2021, and the abstract of judgment was again amended on June 7, 2022. See
ECF No. 1 at 20–21. Petitioner’s resentencing and amended judgment constitutes an intervening judgment
and as such the instant Petition is not “successive.” See Smith v. Williams, 871 F.3d 684, 687 (9th Cir.
2017) (noting that “when a defendant is resentenced, he has received a new judgment”); Gonzalez v.
Sherman, 873 F.3d 763, 768 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating that “an amended judgment constitutes a new,
intervening judgment that renders a subsequent habeas petition not second or successive even if the
petition challenges only undisturbed portions of the original judgment”) (citing Wentzell v. Neven, 674
F.3d 1124, 1126–28 (9th Cir. 2012)).
Case 3:25-cv-03228-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-3228-JLS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
high court.3 Id. The exhaustion requirement is not satisfied if there is a pending proceeding
in state court that could result in the relief the federal petitioner seeks, thereby mooting the
federal question. 	Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). 	Therefore,
Petitioner has not completed exhaustion of his state judicial remedies.
CONCLUSION
Because Petitioner has a petition currently pending in the California Supreme Court,
the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling
once all state court post-conviction challenges to Petitioner’s convictions have been
completed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)–(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding
every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted).
Furthermore, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because reasonable
jurists would not find this Court’s dismissal debatable. 	See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2);
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (stating a prisoner seeking a certificate of
appealability must demonstrate jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s
resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented
are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further).
The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 13, 2026
3 A review the California Supreme Court docket shows Petitioner filed a petition for habeas relief in that
court on October 10, 2025 in Case No. S293346, which is still pending. See California Appellate Courts
Case 	Information, 	https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?doc_id=
3142744&request_token=NiIwLSEnPkw9WyBNSCM9SEJJQDg0UDxTKiIuSz5SUCAgCg%3D%3D
&start=1&doc_no=S293346&dist=0&search=party&auth=yes (visited Feb. 10, 2026).
Case 3:25-cv-03228-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3