Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05882/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05882-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSCAR REYNALDO GOMEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-05882-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. #24 & #28)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

CLOSE FILE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 15, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

Recommendation recommending that Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. #24) be granted and the

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because the petition was entirely composed

of claims that had not been exhausted in state court. (Doc. #28). The Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On January 25, 2008, after having been

granted several extensions of time, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation. (Doc. #32). 

Case 1:04-cv-05882-AWI-TAG Document 34 Filed 03/07/08 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections,

the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the

record and proper analysis. In the objections, Petitioner contends that his claims are exhausted

because they were included in his petition for review to the California Supreme Court. A careful

consideration of the petition filed in the California Supreme Court reveals that Petitioner is mistaken. 

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner is required to provide the state courts with a “fair

opportunity” to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276-77 (1971). "It is not enough that all the facts necessary to

support the federal claim were before the state courts or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was

made." Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982) (internal site omitted); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.

at 277. At best, the petition for review may have contained allegations similar to the claims alleged

in this action or contained related assertions while discussing other claims. This is insufficient. 

Because the allegations made to the California Supreme Court are different from the claims raised

here, the claims were not fairly presented to the state court and the petition's claims are unexhausted

for federal habeas corpus purposes. Thus, Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning

the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued November 15, 2007 (Doc. #28), is

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. #24) is GRANTED;

3. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice;

and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05882-AWI-TAG Document 34 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2