Cardenas v. Warden
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-02584
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cardenas v. Warden, Judge Gilliam denied transfer, dismissed the petition without prejudice for uncompleted state review, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Antonio Damian Cardenas's federal habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice because he had not exhausted state-court remedies; he may file a new petition after doing so.
What happened
Antonio Damian Cardenas, who was representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging his custody. The court had ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed because he had not first completed available state-court remedies.
Cardenas asked the court to transfer his federal petition to the California Supreme Court. The court denied that request because a federal case cannot be transferred to state court; he would have to file a new state-court case. The court also dismissed the petition without prejudice because he had not exhausted state remedies.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied a certificate of appealability, concluding that Cardenas had not shown that reasonable judges could debate the procedural ruling or whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim.
The detailed version
- Cardenas v. Warden · No. 4:21-cv-02584
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 21, 2021
Background
Antonio Damian Cardenas, an inmate at Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility, filed this self-represented action seeking a writ of habeas corpus, a court order concerning unlawful custody. The court had ordered Cardenas to show why the action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state-court remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
Request for Transfer and Dismissal
Cardenas filed a pleading asking the federal court to transfer his petition to the California Supreme Court. The court denied the request because a federal court action cannot be transferred to state court. The court explained that Cardenas would have to file a new action in state court if he wanted to seek relief there.
The court determined that the transfer request indicated Cardenas had not exhausted his state-court remedies. It therefore dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust those remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The dismissal was without prejudice to filing a new petition after state judicial remedies were exhausted.
Certificate of Appealability
The court denied a certificate of appealability. It found that Cardenas had not shown that reasonable judges could debate whether the petition stated a valid claim that his constitutional rights were denied or whether the court was correct in dismissing the petition on procedural grounds.
Disposition
The court denied the request for transfer, dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice to filing a new petition after state judicial remedies were exhausted, and denied a certificate of appealability. The order terminated Docket No. 15.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.