Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00059/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00059-2/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS D. BRALEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

L. CROWNES, WARDEN, et al., )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________ )

CV F 05-0059 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS

[Documents #11 & #15]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to be released because he has

served his two year prison term and is entitled to prison credits. 

On July 15, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be dismissed for

Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. These findings and recommendations

were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days.

Petitioner filed objections on August 22, 2005.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has

conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In his

Case 1:05-cv-00059-AWI-WMW Document 17 Filed 09/21/05 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

27

28 2

objections, Petitioner provides over 100 pages of exhibits in support of Petitioner’s claim. 

Petitioner complains that the Magistrate Judge erred by ordering some these documents

returned to Petitioner earlier in this action. In addition, Petitioner discusses various

difficulties he has had obtaining records supporting his claim. Finally, Petitioner provides

copies of numerous appeals filed within the prison system concerning Petitioner’s good time

credits and release date. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, a petition for writ of habeas

corpus cannot be granted unless the petitioner has “exhausted the remedies available in the

courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner can satisfy this 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); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996); James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 24

(9th Cir. 1994). The court has reviewed Petitioner’s voluminous objections. Nowhere does

Petitioner provide evidence that he has presented his claim to the California Supreme Court. 

Petitioner does not refute Respondent’s evidence that the petition’s claim was never

presented to the California Supreme Court. Accordingly, the petition’s claim is unexhausted,

and the petition must be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

July 15, 2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

3. This petition is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies;

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00059-AWI-WMW Document 17 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2