Walters v. Macomber et al

1
26-cv-00428-AJB-VET
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
VINCENT LEGREND WALTERS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFF MACOMBER, Secretary, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-00428-AJB-VET
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and paid the filing fee. (Doc. Nos. 1; 6.) Petitioner
challenges his resentencing in San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCD260844.
(See Doc. No. 1-2 at 1.) As discussed below, the case must be dismissed because Petitioner
has failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies.
DISCUSSION
Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their state court conviction or the
length of their confinement in state prison, must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133–34 (1987). To exhaust state
judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court
with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal habeas
petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133–34. Moreover, to properly
Case 3:26-cv-00428-AJB-VET Document 7 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-00428-AJB-VET
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
exhaust state court remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of his
or her federal rights have been violated. The Supreme Court has stated: “If state courts are
to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they
must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United
States Constitution.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365–66 (1995). For example, “[i]f a
habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him
[or her] the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he [or she] must
say so, not only in federal court, but in state court.” Id. at 366 (emphasis added).
Nowhere does Petitioner allege that the claims raised in his federal petition have
been presented to the California Supreme Court. In fact, he specifically indicates he did
not seek such review of the four claims raised. (See Doc. No. 1 at 6–9.) Because it is clear
from the face of the petition that Petitioner has not raised any of his claims in the California
Supreme Court, it is subject to dismissal. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518–22 (1982)
(stating a federal court will not entertain a habeas corpus petition unless the petitioner has
exhausted the available state judicial remedies on every ground presented in the petition).
Further, the Court cautions Petitioner a one-year period of limitation applies to
petitions for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The limitation period runs from
the latest of:
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct
review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by
State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is
removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by
the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral
review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented
could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
Case 3:26-cv-00428-AJB-VET Document 7 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-00428-AJB-VET
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
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)–(D).1
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal
of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits
annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” Rule 4, 28
U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently
entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged exhaustion of state court
remedies.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice to
refiling as new case after Petitioner has exhausted his claims in state court. Furthermore,
the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find
this Court’s dismissal debatable. See 28 U.S.C. § 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 shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2026
1 	The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition is
pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz
v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery and
acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record] are in compliance with the
applicable laws and rules governing filings.”). However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of
limitations does run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181–82
(2001).
Case 3:26-cv-00428-AJB-VET Document 7 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3