Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01599/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01599-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUSTIN BILLY WILLIS, III, No. 2:13-CV-1599-TLN-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. AMENDED FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

HEIDI H. LACKNER,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are: (1) respondent’s

motion to dismiss the petition as unexhausted; and (2) petitioner’s motion for an order staying

the matter and holding further consideration of the petition in abeyance pending exhaustion in

state court. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), the exhaustion of available state remedies is required

before claims can be granted by the federal court in a habeas corpus case. See Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509 (1982); see also Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003); Hunt v.

Pliler, 336 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2003). Claims may be denied on the merits notwithstanding lack of

exhaustion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). “A petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement

1

Case 2:13-cv-01599-JKS Document 33 Filed 03/02/15 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

in two ways: (1) by providing the highest state court with an opportunity to rule on the merits of

the claim . . .; or (2) by showing that at the time the petitioner filed the habeas petition in federal

court no state remedies are available to the petitioner and the petitioner has not deliberately

by-passed the state remedies.” Batchelor v. Cupp , 693 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations

omitted). The exhaustion doctrine is based on a policy of federal and state comity, designed to

give state courts the initial opportunity to correct alleged constitutional deprivations. See Picard

v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971); see also Rose, 455 U.S. at 518. 

In this case, respondent argues that the petition contains unexhausted claims,

citing plaintiff’s failure to present all his claims to the state court by way of either direct or

collateral review. A review of the record, including petitioner’s November 14, 2014, objections

to the court initial findings and recommendations issued on November 5, 2014, reflects that

petitioner has now exhausted all the claims raised in the instant federal petition. Specifically,

those claims not addressed on direct review appear to have been denied on the merits by the

California Supreme Court on September 17, 2014. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:13-cv-01599-JKS Document 33 Filed 03/02/15 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

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) be denied;

2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay (Doc. 21) be denied as unnecessary; and

3. Respondent be directed to file an answer to the petition. 

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 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 27, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-01599-JKS Document 33 Filed 03/02/15 Page 3 of 3