Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02672/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02672-0/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

Although petitioner states on the face of his petition form that he “challenges conditions 1

of confinement,” a review of the petition, wherein he seeks “immediate release and discharge of

parole,” reveals that he is challenging a 2006 parole denial. “Federal law opens two main avenues

to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254, and

a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1983. 

Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province

of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973);

requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (per curiam). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN WINDHAM,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 07-2672 LKK GGH P

vs.

D.K. SISTO, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma

1

pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). 

Petitioner will be provided the opportunity to either submit the appropriate affidavit in support of

a request to proceed in forma pauperis or submit the appropriate filing fee. 

Case 2:07-cv-02672-LKK -JFM Document 4 Filed 01/09/08 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. 28 2

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

 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). 

2

In addition, petitioner does not demonstrate that he has exhausted his state court

remedies. 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, thus, may 2

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). 

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner

appears to have failed to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner does not represent that the

claims have been presented to the California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that

state court remedies are no longer available to petitioner. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, an

affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee; 

2. Within the same thirty day period, petitioner must demonstrate that he has fully

exhausted his state court remedies;

3. Failure to comply with any portion of this order will result in a

recommendation of dismissal of this action without prejudice; and 3

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the in forma

Case 2:07-cv-02672-LKK -JFM Document 4 Filed 01/09/08 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

pauperis form used by this district. 

DATED: 01/09/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

wind2672.101a+

Case 2:07-cv-02672-LKK -JFM Document 4 Filed 01/09/08 Page 3 of 3