(HC) Vasquez v. Unknown

Filing 5

ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan on 11/22/2024 ORDERING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this case and serve a copy of these findings and recommendations together with a copy of the petition on the AG. IT IS RECOMMENDED petitioner's 1 application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections to F&R due within 21 days. (cc: Tami Krenzin) (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JORGE ALEJANDRO VASQUEZ,

12

No. 2:24-cv-02818-SCR P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

UNKNOWN,

15

ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel and filed a petition for writ of habeas

17
18

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner paid the filing fee.
The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for

19
20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
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

exhaust state court remedies on all three grounds for relief. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner’s first ground

2

for relief has not been presented to any state court. (Id. at 7.) Petitioner’s second ground for

3

relief is pending before the California Court of Appeal. (Id. at 8.) Petitioner’s third ground for

4

relief has not been presented to any state court. (Id. at 10.)

5

There is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to petitioner.

6

Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.2

7

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The Clerk of the Court assign a district judge to this case; and

9

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

10

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

11

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

12
13

habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

14

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

15

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days after

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

(9th Cir. 1991).

21

Dated: November 22, 2024

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