Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01371/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01371-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN W. DUNIGAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-1371 GGH P

vs.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER and FINDINGS &

 / RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a Sacramento County Jail inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (which he denominates inappropriately

as a writ of error coram vobis [sic]), 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 is challenging his November, 2007, Sacramento County Superior Court

conviction for possession for sale of a controlled substance, pursuant to Cal. Health and Safety

Code § 11378, for which he was sentenced to state prison for three years. Petition, p. 1.

Nowhere, however, in his voluminous filing does petitioner demonstrate that he has exhausted

his claims in state court.

Case 2:08-cv-01371-LKK-GGH Document 8 Filed 07/23/08 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 1

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. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

2

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, 1

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). 

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

failed to exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been presented to the California

Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to

petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.

2

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to make a district judge assignment to this

case and to serve a copy of these findings and recommendations together with a copy of the

petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney General of the State of California; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application 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

Case 2:08-cv-01371-LKK-GGH Document 8 Filed 07/23/08 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

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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 07/23/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/ja

duni1371.103

Case 2:08-cv-01371-LKK-GGH Document 8 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 3