Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01854/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01854-0/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

16-cv-1854-JAH-AGS

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Michael Sutton,

Petitioner,

v.

William D. Gore, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv-1854-JAH-AGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT WARDEN’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS (ECF No. 9)

Pro se petitioner Michael Sutton failed to provide evidence that he exhausted his 

claims despite an opportunity do so. For the following reasons, the Court recommends

granting respondent’s dismissal motion.

A federal court must “dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus containing any 

claims that have not been exhausted in the state courts.” Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 

(1982); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Adhering to this doctrine “protects the state 

court’s role in the enforcement of federal law and prevents disruption of state judicial 

proceedings.” Dixon v. Baker, 847 F.3d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, this Court cannot

hear unexhausted claims. Andrews v. Davis, 798 F.3d 759, 790 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding 

Case 3:16-cv-01854-JAH-AGS Document 24 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16-cv-1854-JAH-AGS

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

27

28

that a federal court may not grant habeas relief to state prisoners who have not properly 

exhausted their state court remedies). 

Sutton has not exhausted any of his claims. In his initial filing, Sutton admits he

failed to file a direct appeal or a habeas petition with any California state court. (ECF No. 1,

at 15-19.) Sutton later amended his filing, stating he filed a habeas petition with each level 

of the California state courts until the petition was denied by the California Supreme Court 

for improper filing. (ECF No. 2, at 15-19.) But the California Supreme Court’s website 

reveals no such proceedings.

1 The Court ordered Sutton to provide evidence in support of 

his claim that he filed a state habeas petition, but he failed to do so.

Thus, the Court recommends GRANTING defendant’s dismissal motion and 

dismissing Sutton’s petition. Upon being served with a copy of this report, the parties have 

14 days to file any objections. Upon being served with any such objection, the party 

receiving it has 14 days to file any response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

Dated: July 27, 2017

 

 

1 As of July 27, 2017, a search of www.courts.ca.gov shows no filings from Sutton.

Case 3:16-cv-01854-JAH-AGS Document 24 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2