Huante v. Frauenheim

Filing 4

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 9/20/2017 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; ORDERING Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to this case and serve a copy of these findings and recommendations on the Attorney General of CA; and RECOMMENDING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Assigned and referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (cc: Attorney General of CA) (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRED HUANTE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-1886 DB P
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,
Respondent.

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 has submitted a declaration that makes the showing

20

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

21

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

22

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for

23

writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement

24

by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

25

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v.

26

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985).

27
28

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has failed to
exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been presented to the state courts through a
1

1

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 1 Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are

2

no longer available to petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without

3

prejudice. 2

4

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

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

6

2. The Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this case;

7

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of these findings and recommendations

8

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

9

of California; and

10
11

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas
corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

12

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

13

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

14

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

15

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

16

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, he shall also address

17

whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issues. A

18

certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a

19

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Petitioner is

20

////

21

1

24

In fact, petitioner points out that the California Court of Appeal instructed him to file a habeas
petition in the state superior court seeking retesting of the ballistics evidence. (See Pet. (ECF No.
1) at 5; see also People v. Huante, Nos. C080122, C080600, 2016 WL 6123920, at *3 (Cal. Ct.
App. Oct. 20, 2016) (“This decision does not preclude defendants from filing habeas petitions in
the trial court in order to obtain the bullets and an expert, or from working with the People to
obtain the bullets under sections 1417 et seq. as suggested by the trial court.”)

25

2

22
23

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

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

2

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

DATED: September 20, 2017

4
5
/s/ DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-habeas/Huan1886.103

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3