Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01023/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01023-0/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

 Petitioner has also failed to name a proper respondent. “A petitioner for habeas corpus 1

relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” 

Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28

U.S.C. foll. § 2254). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD SULLIVAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-1023 LKK DAD P

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA , ORDER AND 1

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 /

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. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it

Case 2:08-cv-01023-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 08/26/08 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

 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

2

must be waived explicitly by the respondent’s counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of

exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred.

A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by fairly presenting to the

highest state court all federal claims before presenting them to the federal court. See Duncan v.

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971);

Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th

Cir. 1986). 

In his form petition, petitioner sets forth three grounds upon which he challenges

his 2006 conviction in the Butte County Superior Court. In that petition, however, petitioner also

alleges that he challenged that conviction on appeal only to the California Court of Appeal for the

Third Appellate District and has not filed any state habeas action challenging that conviction. 

Thus, the allegations of the petition concede that petitioner has failed to present his federal

constitutional claims to the California Supreme Court and there is no allegation that state court

remedies are no longer available to petitioner. Thus, upon reviewing the petition for habeas

corpus pending before this court, the undersigned finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state

court remedies. 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 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 

/////

Case 2:08-cv-01023-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 08/26/08 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

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

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

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 25, 2008.

DAD:4

sull1023.103

Case 2:08-cv-01023-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 08/26/08 Page 3 of 3