Chambers v. Lockyer et al.

Filing 3

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, recommending that petitioner's 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, signed by Judge Craig M. Kellison on 11/28/05. Within 20 days after being served with these F/Rs, any party may file written Objections with Court and serve a copy on all parties.(Marciel, M)

(HC) Chambers v. Lockyer et al.

Doc. 3

Case 2:05-cv-02288-GEB-CMK

Document 3

Filed 11/29/2005

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Respondents. 15 / 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 18 The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court's 19 consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v. Lundy, 20 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement 21 by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before 22 presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971), Middleton v. 23 Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 24 /// 25 /// 26 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISOPHER BRIAN CHAMBERS, Petitioner, vs. BILL LOCKYER, California State Attorney General, et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS No. CIV S-05-2288 GEB CMK P

Case 2:05-cv-02288-GEB-CMK

Document 3

Filed 11/29/2005

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to him. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 28, 2005.

______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2