THELTON E. HENDERSON, United States District Judge
Javier Huitron, a prisoner at the Deuel Vocational Institution, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner responded to the motion by filing his own "Motion To Dismiss Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice, To Exhaust State Remedies, And To File Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel," in which he conceded that his petition contained unexhausted claims.
The exhaustion rule requires that prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement first exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of federal-state comity to give the state "`the initial "opportunity to pass upon and correct" alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights.'" Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted). A federal district court must dismiss a habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522.
In light of the parties' agreement that the petition contains claims for which state court remedies have not been exhausted, the court GRANTS respondent's motion to dismiss and petitioner's motion to dismiss. (Docket #4 and #5.) This action is dismissed without prejudice to petitioner filing a new petition for writ habeas corpus after he exhausts his state court remedies as to each and every claim contained in such a petition. Petitioner is cautioned that he must act swiftly to exhaust his state court remedies and file a new petition, as 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) imposes a one-year deadline for the filing of federal petitions.
The clerk shall close the file. Because this action is now closed, when petitioner files his new federal habeas petition, he should not use the case number for this action and instead should file the petition as a new action, i.e., he should send the petition to the court without a case number and the court will assign it a new case number when the petition is filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDGMENT
This action is dismissed without prejudice because petitioner did not exhaust state court remedies before filing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.