Winston v. Silva et al

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
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ERICK K. WINSTON,
Petitioner,
v.
E. SILVA, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 25-cv-10330-NW
ORDER SCREENING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
FOR LACK OF EXHAUSTION
Re: ECF No. 2
Petitioner Erick K. Winston, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising several claims related to his no contest plea in
Alameda County Superior Court. See ECF No. 1. Winston also filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court DENIES as moot given its finding that this matter
must be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of exhaustion.
I. BACKGROUND
Winston alleges that he was charged with assault with force to cause great bodily injury on
an officer in connection with an incident that occurred at Santa Rita Jail in 2019. Winston alleges
that the incident occurred while he was in a psychotic state and, accordingly, he should not have
been charged. He also alleges that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and that the
victim never provided evidence of the severity of his injuries prior to Winston’s plea of no contest.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on “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). The
court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ
Case 5:25-cv-10330-NW Document 3 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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
Northern District of California
should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained
is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. If it appears plainly from the petition that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief, the court must summarily dismiss the petition without ordering a responsive
pleading. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
Even assuming that Winston’s allegations give rise to cognizable habeas claims, the face of
the petition shows that the claims are entirely unexhausted. See ECF No. 1 at 2–3. In his petition,
Winston states that he has not sought appellate or post-conviction relief in any court except this
Court. Id. (answering “no” to questions asking whether Winston appealed his conviction or filed
any “petitions, applications or motions with respect to this conviction in any court, state or
federal.”); id. at 4 (noting that no post-conviction proceedings are currently pending in any court).
A search of the California Supreme Court’s docket also shows that Winston has not filed any
cases there.1
Prisoners in state custody who want to collaterally challenge in federal habeas proceedings
the fact or length of their confinement are required to first exhaust state judicial remedies; they
must do so either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state
court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each claim they seek to raise in
federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515–16 (1982). The
exhaustion doctrine “reflects a policy of federal-state comity . . . to give the State an initial
opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Picard v.
Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations and quotation marks omitted). If it is clear from the
face of the petition that the claims are unexhausted, a federal court may raise the issue of non-
exhaustion sua sponte and summarily dismiss the petition. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124,
1127–28 (9th Cir. 1998).
1 The Court takes judicial notice of the California Supreme Court’s electronic appellate court
docket for “Erick Winston.” See California Appellate Courts Case Information,
https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/searchResults.cfm?dist=0&search=party (last
accessed February 19, 2026); see also Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741,
746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (courts may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public
record).
Case 5:25-cv-10330-NW Document 3 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
Northern District of California
A fully unexhausted federal habeas petition may not be stayed, it must be dismissed. See,
e.g., Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines
that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to the
petitioner’s intentions [. . . . and] may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”);
Jones v. McDaniel, 320 Fed. Appx. 784, 786 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming the dismissal of a fully
unexhausted petition and denial of a stay, because a “[Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)] stay
is only available for a mixed habeas petition where at least some of the claims have been
exhausted, and none of [the petitioner’s] claims were exhausted”).
IV. CONCLUSION
As the face of the petition shows that Winston’s claims have not been exhausted, the Court
DISMISSES the petition without prejudice to Winston re-filing once his claims have been
exhausted in state court.
The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners also require a district
court that dismisses or denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability in its
ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. For the reasons stated above, Winston has
not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in
its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a certificate of
appealability is DENIED. If he wishes to appeal, Winston may seek a certificate of appealability
from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2026
Noël Wise
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-10330-NW Document 3 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 3