Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03021/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03021-2/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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. See 1

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). Nonetheless, the court is mindful that an unexhausted habeas claim may

be denied on the merits only if it is “perfectly clear” that it is not colorable. Cassett v. Stewart,

406 F.3d 614, 623 (9th Cir. 2005).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE DASHER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-3021 DAD P

vs.

MICHAEL MARTEL, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND 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. 

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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it

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

Case 2:08-cv-03021-FCD-DAD Document 13 Filed 02/17/10 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

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 2

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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

2

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

presenting to the highest state court all federal claims before presenting them to the federal court. 

See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971);

Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th

Cir. 1986).

On February 13, 2009, petitioner filed his pending habeas petition challenging the

loss of good time credits as a result of a prison disciplinary proceedings. In his petition,

petitioner indicated that he had exhausted his administrative remedies and attempted to file a

petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Amador County Superior Court challenging the

disciplinary conviction, but that the petition was denied because the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation would not forward his administrative appeal to that court. 

Petitioner did not indicate in his federal petition whether he had filed a habeas petition

challenging his prison disciplinary conviction with the California Supreme Court. Accordingly,

on April 2, 2009, the court informed petitioner of the exhaustion requirement and ordered him to

state whether he had exhausted his claim challenging his disciplinary conviction by presenting

such a claim to the California Supreme Court. 

Petitioner has not responded to the court’s order to show cause. Upon reviewing

the federal habeas petition filed in this court on February 13, 2009, the court finds that it reflects

on its face that petitioner has failed to exhaust his habeas claim in state court. Petitioner’s claims

have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. Moreover, petitioner has not alleged

that state court remedies are no longer available to him. Accordingly, the pending habeas

petition should be dismissed without prejudice.

2

Case 2:08-cv-03021-FCD-DAD Document 13 Filed 02/17/10 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

3

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s February 13, 2009 application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (Doc. No. 7) is granted;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign this case to a District

Judge; 

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

recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed on February 13, 2009, on the Attorney

General of the State of California; and 

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

habeas corpus, filed on February 13, 2009, 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-one 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. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 16, 2010.

DAD:4

dash3021.103

Case 2:08-cv-03021-FCD-DAD Document 13 Filed 02/17/10 Page 3 of 3