Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00841/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00841-0/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

 “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him 1

or her as the respondent to the petition. This person typically is the warden of the facility in

which the petitioner is incarcerated. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th

Cir.1992).” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule

2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives

federal courts of personal jurisdiction. Id.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989). 

In the instant action, petitioner has improperly named the People of the State of California, rather

than the warden of facility wherein he is incarcerated, as respondent. Petitioner is cautioned that

should he return to this court after exhaustion, he should name the proper respondent. Failure to

do so may result in the dismissal of the petition with leave to amend. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at

360.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY LEE BIBBS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0841 MCE GGH P

vs.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondents. ORDER AND 1

 / FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing

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

Case 2:06-cv-00841-MCE -GGH Document 5 Filed 05/18/06 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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 2

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner is challenging his guilty plea and sentence for second degree robbery

(Cal. Penal Code § 212.5(c)) and for personally inflicting great bodily injury on a person other

than an accomplice in the commission of a felony (or attempted felony) (Cal. Penal Code §

12022.7(a) in San Joaquin County Superior Court on November 19, 2003. Form Petition, p. 2. 

Petitioner was sentenced under Cal. Penal Code § 667.5(b) for a prior nonviolent offense (or

offenses). Id. Petitioner also list offenses for receiving stolen property (Cal. Penal Code §

496(a)) and forgery (Cal. Penal Code § 470). Id. It is unclear whether or not petitioner lists these

last two offenses as those offenses which served to enhance his sentence under Cal. Penal Code §

667.5(b). 

Petitioner states only that he appealed the conviction/sentence to the Third District

Court of Appeal, checking the box that indicated that he filed no other appeal. Form Petition, p.

3. He states that the appeal on denied in November of 2004. Petitioner indicates no other filing

on the form petition except to check the box “yes” for a first petition indicating he appealed to

the highest court having jurisdiction. He does not, however, provide any date for any such filing

or decision; his conflicting, ambiguous and scanty information leads the court to conclude that

petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies as to his claims. 

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 respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, 2

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

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). 

Case 2:06-cv-00841-MCE -GGH Document 5 Filed 05/18/06 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

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 3

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). 

3

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 California

Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to

petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.

3

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. 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 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of

habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

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

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

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Findings

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

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

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 5/18/06

s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009 - bibb0841.103

Case 2:06-cv-00841-MCE -GGH Document 5 Filed 05/18/06 Page 3 of 3