Risch v. County of Mendocino
- Edward Davila
- 5:25-cv-01367
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Risch v. County of Mendocino, Judge Davila dismissed the federal challenge because Risch had not finished pursuing his state remedies.
Daniel C. Risch's federal challenge to his state conviction was dismissed without prejudice because he had not exhausted his state judicial remedies. The opinion states that he may file a new federal habeas petition after those remedies are exhausted.
What happened
Daniel C. Risch, who was imprisoned by the state and had no lawyer, filed a federal petition challenging his state conviction. He pleaded no contest to vehicle theft and received a six-year sentence.
The court found that Risch had not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court. A state appeal was still pending, so the court could not review the federal petition yet.
Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed the petition without prejudice, allowing Risch to file a new federal petition after the state courts finish considering his claims.
The detailed version
- Risch v. County of Mendocino · No. 5:25-cv-01367
- Edward Davila
- Aug. 19, 2025
Background
Daniel C. Risch, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petition is a request to challenge the legality of a person's state custody or conviction in federal court. Risch challenged his state conviction and paid the filing fee.
Risch had pleaded no contest to vehicle theft with prior related theft convictions and was found to be a second striker. The Mendocino County Superior Court sentenced him on November 6, 2024, to six years in state prison. The petition stated that Risch had not pursued an appeal because his attorney did not comply with his request to file one. The court's search of California's online appellate database showed that an appeal had been filed on January 8, 2025, and remained pending in the California First Appellate District.
Court's Analysis
Before a state prisoner may seek federal habeas review, the prisoner must first give the state courts—including the state's highest available court—a fair opportunity to decide each federal claim. The court determined that Risch had not presented the claims in his federal petition to the California Supreme Court, either through a direct appeal or a state habeas action. Because his state remedies had not been exhausted, the petition was not ready for federal review.
Disposition
Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice to Risch filing a new federal petition after he exhausts his state judicial remedies, meaning after the state supreme court issues a decision denying relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.