Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02049/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02049-6/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

GERALD COLLINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2049 MCE EFB P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter is currently before the court on respondent’s

motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.

I. Procedural History

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder on October 20, 1983. 

He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison with a two-year weapons enhancement. Petitioner

was found suitable for parole by the Board of Prison Terms (now the Board of Parole Hearings)

on August 15, 2003. However, on review of that decision, pursuant to California Penal Code

section 3041.2., the governor reversed the decision on January 12, 2004. The Board again found

petitioner suitable for parole on March 13, 2004. The governor reversed that decision on March

25, 2004. Petitioner sought relief in state court by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

Case 2:04-cv-02049-MCE -EFB Document 27 Filed 03/08/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

with the Sacramento County Superior Court on April 9, 2004. That court transferred the matter

on May 27, 2004, to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, as that is the court of petitioner’s

conviction. Petitioner then sought habeas relief in Division 5 of the Second District Court for

the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on July 15, 2004. The California Supreme

Court denied review on September 15, 2004. Petitioner filed the present action on September

29, 2004. II. Exhaustion Standard

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

explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1

 A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may

not be implied or inferred. 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.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

The state court has had an opportunity to consider claims when the petitioner has fairly

presented the claim to that court. The fair presentation requirement is met where the petitioner

has described the operative facts and legal theory on which his claim is based. Picard, 404 U.S.

at 277 - 78. Generally, 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). Instead, 

[i]f state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged

violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted

to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United

States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an

evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so,

not only in federal court, but in state court.

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). Accordingly, “a claim for relief in habeas corpus

Case 2:04-cv-02049-MCE -EFB Document 27 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of

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. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

3

must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the

facts which entitle the petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 (1996). 

Respondent moves to dismiss for failure to exhaust on the basis that, in petitioner’s

present petition, he alleges that “the Governor violated his federal due process rights when he

reversed parole,” although in his state petitions he alleged that the Board of Prison Terms

violated his federal right to due process by requiring him to once again be found suitable for

parole. 

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

exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner alleged in this petition a claim different from that

presented to the state courts, insofar as the actor alleged to have caused the deprivation of due

process is the governor in the instant petition and the Board of Prison Terms in the state

petitions. See Resp.’s Mot. to Dism., Exs. 1, 2. Petitioner’s federal claims have not been

presented to the California Supreme Court. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss should

be granted and the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.2 See Castille v. Peoples, 489

U.S. 346, 349 (1989) (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982)) (holding that a petition must

be dismissed if state remedies have not been exhausted as to any of the federal claims).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s June 6, 2006, motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

Case 2:04-cv-02049-MCE -EFB Document 27 Filed 03/08/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Date: March 8, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02049-MCE -EFB Document 27 Filed 03/08/07 Page 4 of 4