(HC) Gibbs v. Shasta County Superior Court

Filing 11

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/31/2021 VACATING 7 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING as moot 8 Motion to Proceed IFP; DENYING without prejudice 9 Request to File Documents Electr onically; and RECOMMENDING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies and this case be closed. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT ALAN GIBBS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:21-cv-0027 WBS CKD P

v.

ORDER AND

SHASTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

16
Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

17
18

On February 23, 2021, the court recommended that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure

19

to pay the filing fee for this action or submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis. As petitioner

20

has now paid the filing fee, the court’s recommendation will be vacated.

21

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all

22

petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the

23

petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review.
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). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement

26

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

27

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

28

/////
1

Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus reveals he has not exhausted state court

1
2

remedies with respect to any of his claims. Accordingly, the petition must summarily be

3

dismissed.

4

The court notes that petitioner has requested that he be permitted to file documents

5

electronically in this matter. In light of the foregoing, petitioner’s request will be denied. If this

6

action does proceed further on petitioner’s claims, petitioner may renew his request.

7

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The court’s February 23, 2021 findings and recommendations are vacated;

9

2. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is denied as

10
11
12

moot.
3. Petitioner’s request that he be permitted to file documents in this action electronically
(ECF No. 9) is denied without prejudice.

13

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

14

1. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state

15

court remedies; and

16

2. This case be closed.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a

22

certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this

23

case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or

24

deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as

25

here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should

26

issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

27

district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

28

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris
2

1

v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

2

(2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

3

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

4

Dated: March 31, 2021

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10

1
gibb0027.fte

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3