Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02246/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02246-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HARDNEY, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2246 WBS CMK P

vs.

WONG, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis

with this application for a writ of habeas corpus. On December 16, 2006, respondents filed a

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s habeas application on the grounds that he has failed to exhaust his

remedies in the California state courts. Petitioner has not filed a response. 

The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court's

consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can satisfy 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). 

///

Case 2:06-cv-02246-WBS-CMK Document 9 Filed 01/22/07 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

2

In the instant petition, petitioner challenges a disciplinary violation for

masturbating. A review of the petitions presented in the California state court reveals that

petitioner’s filing in the lower state courts concerned the disciplinary violation for masturbation;

however, his petition to the California Supreme Court did not. (Mot. Dismiss, Ex. A.) The

petition to the California Supreme Court instead concerned a different disciplinary violation for

shouting, kicking a door and destroying state property. (Id.) Accordingly, the claim raised in

the instant petition has not been presented to the California Supreme Court. Middleton v. Cupp,

768 F.2d at 1086. The court finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. 

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

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that respondents’ motion to dismiss

petitioner’s habeas application for failure to exhaust state remedies be granted. 

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, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be

served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: January 18, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02246-WBS-CMK Document 9 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2