Thompson v. Sacramento Municipal Court

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/28/13 ORDERING that 8 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney General of the State of California; and Petitioners application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. (cc Michael Farrell)(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER D. THOMPSON,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-747 AC

v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL COURT,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

17
18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned.

20

ECF No. 4.
Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by § 1915(a).

21
22

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

23

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for

24
25

writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived

26

explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may

27
28

1

A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(2).
1

1

not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the

2

highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to

3

the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d

4

1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). See also Larche v. Simons, 53

5

F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 1995) (California misdemeanor defendants, whose original

6

challenges to the conviction are concluded before reaching the state Supreme Court, must present

7

their constitutional claims to the state Supreme Court in a habeas petition in order to exhaust

8

claims for federal habeas purposes).

9

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has failed to

10

exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been presented to the California Supreme

11

Court. See ECF No. 1 at 5-6. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no

12

longer available to petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.2

13

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis;

15

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and

16

recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney

17

General of the State of California; and

18

3. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust

19

state remedies.

20

DATED: June 28, 2013

21

______/s/____________________________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
AC:rb/thom0747.103

24
25
26
27
28

2

Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of limitations
for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period
will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of
direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of
limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral
review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
2