Ward v. The People

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/25/15 ORDERING that this action is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. CASE CLOSED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DELANIOUS A. WARD,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2: 14-cv-2861 KJN P

v.

ORDER

THE PEOPLE,

15

Respondents.

16
Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas

17
18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the

19

undersigned. (ECF No. 3.) For the following reasons, this action is dismissed on grounds that

20

none of the claims raised in the amended petition are exhausted.
The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for

21
22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

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

1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986).

2

On December 12, 2014, the undersigned ordered petitioner to show cause why this action

3

should not be dismissed on grounds that his claims were not exhausted. (ECF No. 5.) In this

4

order, the undersigned stated that the petition raised three claims: two claims of ineffective

5

assistance of counsel and one claim alleging perjury by a witness. (Id. at 2.) The December 12,

6

2014 order stated that petitioner admitted that none of his claims had been raised in state court.

7

(Id.)

8
9

In response to the order to show cause, petitioner filed a request to file an amended
petition. (ECF No. 9.) In this pleading, petitioner indicated that he meant to raise four claims:

10

two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and two claims alleging perjury by a witness. (Id.)

11

Petitioner requested leave to file an amended petition raising all four claims. (Id.)

12

On February 4, 2015, the undersigned granted petitioner thirty days to file an amended

13

petition. (ECF No. 10.) In this order, the undersigned advised petitioner that the amended

14

petition must clearly indicate which, if any, of the claims had been presented to the California

15

Supreme Court. (Id.)

16

On March 2, 2015, petitioner filed an amended petition raising two claims of ineffective

17

assistance of counsel and two claims alleging perjury by a witness. (ECF No. 11.) It is clear

18

from the amended petition that none of the claims raised have been presented to the California

19

Supreme Court. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice on grounds that

20

petitioner failed to exhaust state court remedies.2

21

////

22

////

23

////

24

////

25

2

26
27
28

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

1

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed

2

for failure to exhaust state remedies.

3

Dated: March 25, 2015

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ward2861.dis
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3