Guillory v. San Mateo County
- Jon Tigar
- 4:25-cv-00873
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Guillory v. San Mateo County, Judge Tigar dismissed Andrew Samuel Guillory’s federal petition without prejudice for failing to exhaust state remedies and denied a certificate of appealability.
Andrew Samuel Guillory’s federal petition was dismissed without prejudice because he had not exhausted state-court remedies. San Mateo County received judgment in its favor, and Guillory’s request to proceed without paying filing fees was granted.
What happened
In Guillory v. San Mateo County, Andrew Samuel Guillory filed a federal petition challenging his state-court custody. He said he was on supervised release following either a conviction or a no-contest plea in San Mateo County Superior Court and acknowledged that he had not sought review in the California Supreme Court.
The court explained that a person challenging state custody must first give the state courts, including the highest available state court, a fair opportunity to consider each claim. Because Guillory had not sought review in the California Supreme Court, the court found that he had not completed that required process.
The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, meaning it could be filed again after state remedies are exhausted, and denied a certificate of appealability. Judge Tigar also granted Guillory’s request to proceed without paying filing fees, entered judgment for San Mateo County, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Guillory v. San Mateo County · No. 4:25-cv-00873
- Jon Tigar
- July 8, 2025
Background
Andrew Samuel Guillory filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to ask a federal court to determine whether that custody violates federal law. The petition was filed without a lawyer. Guillory stated that he was on supervised release based on either a conviction or a no-contest plea in San Mateo County Superior Court criminal case No. 22NFO12899 for “failure to register.” He also stated that he had not sought review in the California Supreme Court.
Exhaustion Requirement
Before a federal court may grant relief under Section 2254, the petitioner generally must present each federal claim to the highest available state court through direct review or state collateral proceedings. The court concluded that Guillory’s statement that he had not sought review in the California Supreme Court showed that he had not exhausted his state-court remedies.
Rulings
The court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. The dismissal was without prejudice to refiling after the state remedies are exhausted. The court did not decide whether Guillory’s underlying claims were legally or factually valid.
The court also denied a certificate of appealability, which is required for an appeal in this type of federal state-prisoner case when the court denies the petition. Separately, the court granted Guillory’s request to proceed without paying filing fees, entered judgment in favor of San Mateo County and against Guillory, directed the Clerk to close the case, and terminated the filing associated with that request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.