Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02160/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02160-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH DANNY PROPHET,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2160 MCE CMK P

vs.

WARDEN CLAY, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS & 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.

Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this

action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

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-02160-MCE -CMK Document 8 Filed 11/13/06 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

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has

failed to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner indicates that his direct review in the California

Supreme Court is still pending. (Pet. ¶ 9(e)(2).) He appears to states that he has received no

result in his petition for habeas relief submitted to the California Supreme Court. (Pet. ¶ 11(6).) 

The claims have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. A search of the California

Appellate Courts’ website reveals that petitioner filed a habeas appeal in the California Supreme

Court on October 5, 2006 and October 31, 2006. See http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca/gov. 

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

Accordingly, 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. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Findings

and Recommendations.” The petitioner is 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: November 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02160-MCE -CMK Document 8 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 2