Lopes v. State of Hawaii, 1:13-cv-00655

Lopes filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 on November 26, 2013.
The court directed identification of a proper respondent, filing fee or in forma pauperis status, and exhaustion arguments.
Amended petition and IFP application were filed; IFP was granted.
The petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent and for unexhausted claims.
Lopes alleges expungement of 2006 forgery/theft convictions and non-crediting by Hawaii, citing prior related actions.
The court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over the respondent due to improper respondentdesignation.
Governing law requires exhaustion of state remedies and proper respondent identification for habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper respondent identified for habeas petition	Lopes argues proper respondent (custodian) was named	Lopes failed to name a state officer having custody	Dismissed for improper respondent
Exhaustion of state remedies	Lopes exhausted remedies via prison grievance but not state courts	Exhaustion required for all grounds	Unexhausted claims; petition dismissed without prejudice
Exhaustion doctrine application	Claims related to expungement should be considered	Claims unexhausted overall	Sua sponte dismissal for failure to exhaust

Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) (exhaustion requirement and fair presentation to state courts)
Greene v. Lambert, 288 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2002) (claims reviewed on merits by state court; comity)
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (requires dismissal of fully unexhausted petitions)
Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) (fully unexhausted petitions must be dismissed not stayed)
Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 1 (1987) (sua sponte dismissal for failure to exhaust)