Garcia v. Ramirez

Decision Date15 December 1971
Docket NumberCiv. No. 244-71.
Citation337 F. Supp. 39
PartiesEduardo Rivera GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Benjamin Rivera RAMIREZ, Warden, Punta Lima Camp, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

Harry Anduze Montano, San Juan, P. R., for petitioner.

Federico L. Torres, Special Pros. Atty., Dept. of Justice, Com. P. R., San Juan, P. R., for respondent.

ORDER

TOLEDO, Chief Judge.

Petitioner, Eduardo Rivera Garcia, filed through his counsel, on December 6, 1971, a Petition for Habeas Corpus alleging that he is restrained of his liberty in violation of his constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United States.

It is stated in said petition that Eduardo Rivera Garcia is in Camp Punta Lima under the custody of the respondent herein, serving a prison term of ten to fifteen years imposed in Criminal No. G-66-309, by the Superior Court of Caguas, Puerto Rico, on December 29, 1966, which action was confirmed by Resolution No. CR-68-17, in the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. The petitioner, Eduardo Rivera Garcia, further states that he filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus on March 27, 1969, in Civil Case No. 69-5603 at the Superior Court of Caguas, Puerto Rico, which was denied. But the petitioner nowhere reveals any further action taken by him in the local courts.

In view that petitioner herein failed to exhaust his available state remedies since petitioner failed to appeal to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico the decision where the Commonwealth Superior Court denied his petition of March 27, 1969 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, as required by Rule 192.1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Title 34, L.P.R. A.), this Court cannot entertain the above entitled action under Title 28, U.S. C.A., Section 2254.

Section 2254 of Title 28, United States Code, in the pertinent provisions, reads as follows:

"(b) An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the Courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner.
(c) An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise by any
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Rodriguez v. WARDEN, ESCUELA INDUSTRIAL DE MUJERES, Civ. No. 91-2325 (JP).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 5 Mayo 1992
    ...upon which the petitioner bases her assertions. Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 102 S.Ct. 18, 70 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981); García v. Ramírez, 337 F.Supp. 39 (D.C.P.R.1971). Where mixed claims require the dismissal of the habeas petition, it is appropriate for the district court to dismiss the cas......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT