Jones v. The People of the State of California

Filing 8

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/7/15 ORDERING that Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; The Clerk shall assign a district judge to this case as petitioner has not filed a consent to the undersigned presiding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); The 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 Ge neral of the State of California; and IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioners application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Randomly assigned and referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

ROY JONES,

7

Petitioner,

8
9
10

No. 2:14-cv-2823 GGH P

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondents.

11

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

12
13

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

14

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing

15

required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

16

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

17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986).
After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has failed to

24
25

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

26

Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to

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

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

2

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

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

4

2. The Clerk shall assign a district judge to this case as petitioner has not filed a consent

5

to the undersigned presiding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c);

6

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

7

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

8

General of the State of California; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas

9
10

corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

11

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

12

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

13

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

14

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and

15

Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

16

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

17

(9th Cir. 1991).

18

Dated: January 7, 2015
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20

Jones2823.103

21
22
23
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