Tankins v. Superior Court of California County of Sacramento
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/12/16 ORDERING that petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 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 General of the State of California; and petitioner's 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
MAHKUSAH IMMANUEL TANKINS,
12
13
14
No. 2: 16-cv-2470 KJN P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
SUPERIOR COURT,
15
Respondents.
16
17
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas
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 submitted a declaration that makes the showing required
20
by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915(a).
22
Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (ECF No. 6.)
23
Petitioner requests that his sentence be reduced pursuant to Proposition 47 and California
24
Penal Code § 1170.18. Proposition 47, enacted in November 2014, “makes certain drug – and
25
theft – related offenses misdemeanors, unless they were committed by certain ineligible
26
defendants.” People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089 (2015).
27
28
The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for
writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived
1
1
explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may
2
not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the
3
highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to
4
the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d
5
1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986).
6
After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has failed to
7
exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been presented to the California Supreme
8
Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to
9
petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.2
10
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis;
12
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and
13
recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney
14
General of the State of California; and
3. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust
15
16
state remedies.
17
Dated: December 12, 2016
18
19
20
Tank2470.103
21
22
23
1
24
A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(2).
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?