Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02682/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02682-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILTON EUGENE JONES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 07-2682 MCE GGH P

vs.

SUZAN HUBBARD, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner pro se, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, on March 29, 2006, was sentenced to a total of nine

years in state prison for an attempted carjacking, for a robbery for which petitioner had been on

probation, and for a prior serious felony conviction. Petition, pp. 1, 12; Motion to Dismiss

(MTD, p. 2. Petitioner’s grounds for his challenge to the judgment are: 1) insufficient evidence;

2) prosecutorial misconduct; 3) improper exclusion of alibi evidence. Petition, pp. 1-50. 

Respondent, on February 6, 2008, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state court

remedies, contending that claim 2 of the petition is unexhausted. 

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

Case 2:07-cv-02682-TJH Document 12 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 2
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 1

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

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

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). 

On February 21, 2008, petitioner filed a statement of non-opposition, conceding

that claim 2 is not exhausted, and asking that the court proceed on the claims for which

respondent has conceded exhaustion: claims 1 and 3. Statement of Non-Opposition, filed on

February 21, 2008.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed on February 6, 2008 (#9), construed as a

motion to strike the unexhausted claim from the petition, to which petitioner has filed a statement

of non-opposition, is granted, and claim 2 is stricken from the petition;

2. This petition now proceeds as to exhausted claims 1 and 3;

3. Respondent must file an answer within thirty days of the date of this order,

after which petitioner has thirty days to file a reply/traverse. 

DATED: 03/18/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

jone2682.mtd

Case 2:07-cv-02682-TJH Document 12 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 2