Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02651/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02651-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON HERRING, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2651 GEB EFB P

vs.

C.E. FINN, Warden, DVI,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He alleges in his petition that: (1) he was denied an opportunity to confront and

cross-examine a witness whose statements were relied upon at a parole-revocation hearing in

violation of the recent Stipulated Order for Injunctive Relief in Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger,

Case No. CIV S-94-0671 LKK GGH (E.D. Cal.); and (2) exculpatory evidence on behalf of

petitioner was not admitted or considered by the presiding deputy commissioner prior to a good

cause finding that he violated parole.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action on April 25, 2006. Petitioner has not

filed a response. For the reasons explained below, the court finds that respondent’s motion to

dismiss must be granted.

Respondent moves to dismiss upon the grounds that petitioner failed to exhaust his

claims in state court. It appears from the petition that the petitioner is seeking to enforce a

Case 2:05-cv-02651-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 2
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

decree entered in the ongoing Valdivia litigation. However, rather than filing a motion in that

action to enforce the decree he has, instead, presented what purports to be an original application

for habeas relief. Petitioner has failed to state whether he pursued his claims in state court prior

to seeking relief by filing this action. Rather, he indicated “not applicable” as to all questions

regarding exhaustion on the habeas application filed in this action.

A federal district court may not entertain a petition for habeas corpus unless the petitioner

has exhausted state court remedies with respect to each claim raised in the petition. Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 516 (1982). A petitioner satisfies the federal exhaustion requirement by

fairly presenting to the state’s highest court all federal claims before he presents them to a

federal court. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam); Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d

861, 865 (9th Cir.1996). Respondents have demonstrated, and petitioner presents no evidence to

the contrary, that petitioner’s federal habeas petition contains claims that have not been

presented to the California Supreme Court. Therefore, petitioner’s federal habeas petition must

be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that respondent’s April 25, 2006, motion to

dismiss be granted and this action be dismissed.

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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 28, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02651-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 2