Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01008/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01008-3/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

GARRY D. SMITH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1008 RRB DAD P

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a

habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 8, 2008, the court filed findings and

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to petitioner’s failure to file

an amended habeas petition as ordered by the court on December 26, 2007. On February 13,

2008, petitioner filed his amended petition. Therefore, the February 8 findings and

recommendations will be vacated. 

However, 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

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01008-JAM-DAD Document 12 Filed 02/22/08 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. See 1

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

 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

must be waived explicitly by the respondent’s counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver

1

of exhaustion 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) (per curiam); 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). 

Upon reviewing the amended petition for habeas corpus filed by petitioner, the

court finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. The claims set forth in the

amended petition have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. In this regard, in his

amended petition petitioner alleges that he unsuccessfully appealed his judgment of conviction to

the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District. However, in the section of the

form petition inquiring whether further appellate review was sought, petitioner has not

responded. Moreover, petitioner specifically indicates in his form petition that he has not filed

any state habeas actions challenging the conviction at issue. Accordingly, on the face of his

amended petition, petitioner has conceded his failure to exhaust his claims. Further, there is no

allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to petitioner. Accordingly, the

amended petition should be dismissed without prejudice.

2

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01008-JAM-DAD Document 12 Filed 02/22/08 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. The findings and recommendations, filed on February 8, 2008, are vacated; and 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the new findings and

recommendations together with a copy of the amended petition filed in the instant case on the

Attorney General of the State of California; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s amended petition 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. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 21, 2008.

DAD:4

smi1008.103

Case 2:07-cv-01008-JAM-DAD Document 12 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 3