Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01609/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01609-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUANJA EDWARD ANDERSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1609 GEB KJM P

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

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

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

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

Case 2:05-cv-01609-GEB -KJM Document 6 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

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

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

The state court has had an opportunity to rule on the merits when the petitioner

has fairly presented the claim to that court. The fair presentation requirement is met where the

petitioner has described the operative facts and legal theory on which his claim is based. Picard,

404 U.S. at 277-78. Generally, it is “not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal

claim were before the state courts . . . or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made.” 

Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). Instead, 

[i]f state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged

violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted

to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United

States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an

evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so,

not only in federal court, but in state court.

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). Accordingly, “a claim for relief in habeas corpus

must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the

facts which entitle the petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 116 S. Ct. 2074,

2081 (1996). The United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not

entertain a petition for habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with

respect to each of the claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). 

From petitioner’s habeas application, it appears petitioner has exhausted state

court remedies with respect to claims three and four and has not exhausted state court remedies

with respect to claims one and two. Petitioner thus appears to have two options. Within thirty

days: (1) petitioner may file an amended habeas application omitting claims one and two and

any other claims where petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies; or (2) file a request

to stay this action pending exhaustion of state court remedies with respect to claims one and two. 

Petitioner is informed that to be entitled to a stay, he must show good cause for his failure to

exhaust earlier, and that the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious. Rhines v. Weber, 

Case 2:05-cv-01609-GEB -KJM Document 6 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 U.S. , 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). Petitioner’s failure to comply with one of these

alternatives within thirty days will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists

no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105

F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of

counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R.

Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice

would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days within which to file a motion for a stay of this

action pending the exhaustion of state court remedies with respect to claims one and two, or an

amended petition for habeas corpus wherein petitioner asserts only claims that have been

presented to, and rejected by the California Supreme Court;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a form application for writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and 

4. Petitioner’s September 2, 2005 request for appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: October 27, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

ande1609.sty 

Case 2:05-cv-01609-GEB -KJM Document 6 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 3