Dasher v. Martel et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/2/09 ORDERING that within fifteen days from the service of this order, petitioner shall file a response to this order which explains whether petitioner has exhausted state court remedies by presenting his claims to the California Supreme Court. (Becknal, R)

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 vs. MICHAEL LMARTEL, et al., Respondents. / Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 13, 2009, petitioner filed his petition challenging the loss of good time credits as a result of disciplinary proceedings. In his petition, petitioner indicates that he exhausted administrative remedies and attempted to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Amador County Superior Court challenging the disciplinary conviction, but that the petition was denied because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would not forward his administrative appeal to that court. Petitioner does not indicate whether he filed a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court. Petitioner is cautioned that the exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Therefore, the court will order petitioner to file a response to this court order explaining whether he has 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERRENCE DASHER, Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-3021 DAD P

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

exhausted his state court remedies. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days from the service of this order, petitioner shall file a response to this order which explains whether petitioner has exhausted state court remedies by presenting his claims to the California Supreme Court. DATED: April 2, 2009.

DAD:4 dash3021.osc

2