Hildebrand
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-01303
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Michael Hildebrand v. Trisha Campbell, Judge Freeman dismissed Hildebrand’s federal petition without prejudice because he had not exhausted state remedies.
Michael Hildebrand’s federal petition was dismissed without prejudice. He may file a new federal petition after completing state-court review of all his claims.
What happened
Michael Hildebrand, a state inmate representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging constitutional violations related to his 2006 guilty plea and sentence. He had challenged only the amount of his fine in a state appeal and had not asked the California Supreme Court to review his claims.
The court gave Hildebrand an opportunity to show that he had completed the required state-court review. His letters showed that he had filed state petitions in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, but that the state process was still ongoing.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. The dismissal was without prejudice, so Hildebrand may file a new federal petition after the California Supreme Court issues a final decision on all his claims.
The detailed version
- Hildebrand · No. 5:23-cv-01303
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 3, 2023
Background
Michael Hildebrand, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review alleged constitutional violations connected to his 2006 guilty plea. According to the petition, he pleaded guilty to lewd and lascivious act on a child by force under California Penal Code § 288(b)(1).
Hildebrand appealed the amount of the fine imposed but did not seek review in the California Supreme Court. The court previously dismissed his filing with permission to amend so he could address whether he had exhausted his state-court remedies.
In response, Hildebrand submitted letters stating that he had filed state petitions in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in April and September 2023. He said he was attempting to complete review in the superior, appellate, and state supreme courts. The materials showed that the state proceedings were not complete.
Legal standard
A person in state custody generally must exhaust available state judicial remedies before seeking federal review of the fact or length of confinement. Exhaustion requires presenting each federal claim to the highest available state court, giving that court a fair opportunity to decide the claim. If all claims have not been exhausted, the federal district court must dismiss the petition.
Ruling
The court concluded that Hildebrand had clearly not exhausted all state judicial remedies. The court therefore dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.
The dismissal was without prejudice to refiling as a new action after Hildebrand completes state-court review, including a final decision from the California Supreme Court on all his claims. The court also told him not to file additional progress updates in this matter and not to refer to this case or its case number when filing a new federal petition.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.