Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02350/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02350-1/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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VICTOR SALGADO, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DAVID LONG, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:13-cv-2350-TLN-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that 

petitioner’s claim has not been exhausted. See ECF No. 12 at 3 (stating that petitioner’s state 

habeas petition remained pending in the California Supreme Court). In response, petitioner states 

that his claim is now exhausted because the California Supreme Court denied his petition on 

January 24, 2014. ECF No. 13 (referencing California Supreme Court Case No. S213661). 

Respondent filed nothing in response. 

 A district court may not grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless the petitioner 

has exhausted available state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Exhaustion of state court 

remedies requires that petitioners fairly present federal claims to the highest state court, either on 

direct appeal or through state collateral proceedings, in order to give the highest state court “the 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-02350-TLN-EFB Document 16 Filed 08/05/14 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 

27 

28 

2

opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Duncan 

v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (some internal quotations omitted). 

 A review of the California Supreme Court’s docket shows that there is no pending petition 

filed on petitioner’s behalf.1 It also confirms petitioner’s representation that his application for 

habeas relief in case number S213661 was denied in January 2014. As petitioner’s claims are no 

longer pending before the California Supreme Court, respondent’s motion to dismiss on this basis 

must be denied.2 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Respondent’s January 14, 2014 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) be denied. 

2. Respondent be directed to file and serve an answer in response to petitioner’s 

application within 60 days from the date of any order adopting these findings and 

recommendation. See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Any response should be 

accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the 

issues presented in the application. See Rules 4, 5, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

 3. Petitioner be directed to file his reply, if any, within 30 days of service of the answer. 

 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 fourteen 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 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 

///// 

///// 

///// 

 1

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 

F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 

2

 Judicial economy would have been better served had respondent moved to withdraw his 

motion to dismiss, or at the very least, filed a reply brief. 

Case 2:13-cv-02350-TLN-EFB Document 16 Filed 08/05/14 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 

27 

28 

3

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). 

DATED: August 4, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02350-TLN-EFB Document 16 Filed 08/05/14 Page 3 of 3