Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00980/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00980-1/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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID EARL WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0980 LKK KJM P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, ORDER AND 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Petitioner challenges his November 2001 Sacramento County

conviction for murder. 

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 respondents’ counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 A waiver of exhaustion,

Case 2:05-cv-00980-AK Document 6 Filed 08/16/05 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

2

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). 

The state court has had an opportunity to rule on the merits when the petitioner

has fairly presented the claim to that court. The fair presentation requirement is met where the

petitioner has described the operative facts and legal theory on which his claim is based. Picard,

404 U.S. at 277-78. Generally, it is “not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal

claim were before the state courts . . . or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made.” 

Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). Instead, 

[i]f state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged

violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted

to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United

States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an

evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so,

not only in federal court, but in state court.

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). Accordingly, “a claim for relief in habeas corpus

must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the

facts which entitle the petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 116 S. Ct. 2074,

2081 (1996). The United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not

entertain a petition for habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with

respect to each of the claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). A mixed petition

containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed.

Petitioner argues he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel when his

lawyer did not follow through on his promise in opening statement to present exonerating

witnesses and failed to stipulate to petitioner’s drug offenses so as to permit petitioner to testify. 

Pet. at 8. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00980-AK Document 6 Filed 08/16/05 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

2

 Petitioner has not asked the court to stay the instant proceedings while he exhausts his

state remedies. Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005).

3

It appears that petitioner has exhausted state remedies as to the first prong of his

ineffective assistance claim, but that a state habeas petition raising the latter portion of the claim

is still pending in the California Supreme Court. Pet. at 6. The petition accordingly is “mixed”

and must be dismissed.2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis

is granted. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition be dismissed and petitioner

be given thirty days following the resolution of this recommendation to file an amended petition

containing only exhausted claims.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the 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 Magistrate Judge’s

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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 15, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

will0980.103mix

Case 2:05-cv-00980-AK Document 6 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 3