Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01297/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01297-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER A. TURNER,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON 

SACRAMENTO,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-1297 CKD P

ORDER

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing 

required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct 

all further proceedings in this action. (ECF No. 4.) 

 Petitioner challenges his 2013 prison disciplinary conviction for possession of a weapon, 

resulting in a 360-day loss of credits. He has filed administrative grievances challenging this 

disciplinary conviction. However, petitioner has not challenged his 2013 conviction in the state 

courts. (See ECF No. 1 at 11.) 

 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 

Case 2:15-cv-01297-CKD Document 6 Filed 08/10/15 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

27

28

2

explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 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. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

 A prisoner challenging an administrative decision, such as a disciplinary conviction, “is 

first eligible to file a federal habeas petition only after state habeas proceedings are complete.” 

Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). Before a state prisoner can file a federal 

habeas petition challenging an administrative decision, he must give the state courts “‘one full 

opportunity to resolve any constitutional [claims] by invoking one complete round of the state’s 

established appellate review process.’” Id. (quoting O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 

(1999)). 

 The petitioner in this case is not entitled to relief in the district court at the present time 

because he has not exhausted available state court remedies with regard to the disciplinary 

conviction at issue. Accordingly, the undersigned will dismiss this action without prejudice. See 

Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 

 Petitioner is cautioned that a one-year statute of limitations applies to the filing of a noncapital habeas corpus petition in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). When a state 

prisoner challenges an administrative decision, the one-year period of limitation begins to run on 

the date on which the factual predicate of the claims presented could have been discovered 

through the exercise of due diligence. Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004); 

Redd, 343 F.3d at 1080-83. In general, the one-year period will begin to run on the date the 

administrative decision becomes final. 391 F.3d at 1065-66; 343 F.3d at 1084. 

 However, the AEDPA statute of limitations is tolled during the time a properly filed 

application for post-conviction relief is pending in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Once 

state collateral proceedings are commenced, a state habeas petition is “pending” during a full 

round of review in the state courts, including the time between a lower court decision and the 

 

1 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b)(2). 

Case 2:15-cv-01297-CKD Document 6 Filed 08/10/15 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

27

28

3

filing of a new petition in a higher court, as long as the intervals between petitions are 

“reasonable.” See Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 192 (2006). 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5); 

 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust 

state remedies; and 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order together with a copy of 

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

Dated: August 10, 2015 

 

 

2 / turn1298.103 

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-01297-CKD Document 6 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 3