Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dina Sarkisova, proceeding without an attorney, filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The case, numbered 3:26-cv-3118-BJC-VET, named Kelly A. Martinez and others as respondents. The court had previously dismissed Sarkisova's original petition with leave to amend because it failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies, a prerequisite for federal habeas review of state convictions or confinement.
In her amended petition, Sarkisova stated that she had filed a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court on June 10, 2026, and that it was still pending when she filed her federal amended petition. The district court took judicial notice of the state docket in case S297273 and confirmed that the petition remained pending before the California Supreme Court as of October 14, 2026. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent permitting judicial notice of state court dockets, including information available on the California Appellate Case Information Website.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the amended petition had to be dismissed for failure to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c) and Granberry v. Greer, a California prisoner must give the California Supreme Court a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in the federal petition and must allege in state court how federal rights were violated. Merely filing the state petition is insufficient. Because Sarkisova's state petition was still pending, she had not satisfied the exhaustion requirement and had to await the outcome of the state proceedings.
The court explained that the exhaustion doctrine rests on comity, federalism, and judicial efficiency, and that federal courts generally do not consider a habeas claim until the appropriate state courts have had a full opportunity to act on it, citing Rose v. Lundy and Batchelor v. Cupp. Applying Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which permits summary dismissal when it plainly appears from the face of the petition and exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court concluded that Sarkisova was not presently entitled to federal habeas relief. It therefore dismissed the case without prejudice to reasserting her claims in a future petition after the state habeas proceedings conclude and state remedies are exhausted, and directed the Clerk to close the file.
Key Takeaways
- A federal habeas petitioner challenging a California conviction or confinement must present every issue to the California Supreme Court and give that court a fair opportunity to rule before seeking federal relief.
- Filing a state habeas petition is not enough to exhaust state remedies while that petition remains pending; the petitioner must await the outcome of the state proceedings.
- The district court may take judicial notice of state court dockets, including online appellate case information, to confirm the status of a petitioner's state habeas proceedings.
- Dismissal for non-exhaustion here was without prejudice, leaving Sarkisova free to file a future federal habeas petition after her state proceedings conclude and exhaustion is complete.
- Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases authorizes summary dismissal when the face of the petition and its exhibits plainly show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces the gatekeeping role of exhaustion in federal habeas practice and shows that even an amended petition filed after an earlier dismissal on the same ground will be dismissed if the state process is still underway. It also illustrates how federal courts use judicial notice of public state dockets to verify exhaustion claims rather than relying solely on a petitioner's allegations.
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the decision does not adjudicate the merits of Sarkisova's constitutional claims or bar a later federal petition. Its practical effect is to channel the dispute back to the California Supreme Court first, preserving comity while leaving the federal forum available once state remedies are genuinely exhausted.