Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00036/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00036-6/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

JASON DAVID YONAI,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0036 RRB GGH P

vs.

MS. EVANS, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

I. Introduction

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is proceeding on the amended petition filed

July 16, 2007. Petitioner challenges a 2002 prison disciplinary conviction for battery on an

inmate, no. 02-01-23 RCA. The incident on which the conviction is based occurred at Deuel

Vocational Institution. The petition raises one claim:

I was found guilty of my RVR 115 Log No. 02-01-23-RCA due to Sgt. D. Stapp’s

false statements in his crime incident report where he states that the razor blade

had a tape handle. This is not true and does not match Lt. R. Lucas reported

statements where he states truthfully that the single edged razor blade had

cellophane wrapped around it to form a handle. This statement makes Sgt. D.

Stapp’s statement false and false evidence which means that I was illegally found

guilty of my above stated RVR 115. 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00036-JAM-GGH Document 35 Filed 05/08/08 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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 1

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

Pending before the court is respondent’s February 7, 2008, motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust state court remedies and on grounds that the action is barred by the statute of

limitations. After carefully considering the record, the court recommends that respondent’s

motion be granted on grounds that the claim raised in the amended petition is not exhausted.

II. Failure to Exhaust

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). A waiver of exhaustion, 1

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, 92 S. Ct. 509, 512

(1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

Respondent states that petitioner filed four habeas corpus petitions in the

California Supreme Court, none of which raised claims challenging the at-issue prison

disciplinary conviction. The court has reviewed these petitions, respondent’s exhibits 14-17. 

Exhibit 14 is a petition challenging an incident which occurred at Salinas Valley State Prison.

Exhibits 15 and 16 are habeas petitions which appear to challenge petitioner’s criminal

conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, which was based on the same incident as the atissue prison disciplinary conviction. Exhibit 17 alleges that employees at Salinas Valley State

Prison thwarted petitioner’s attempts to challenge his related criminal conviction by losing his

paperwork, etc. 

In his opposition, petitioner contends that he exhausted his state court remedies in

case no. S147615 filed in the California Supreme Court, respondent’s Exhibit 16. In this

petition, petitioner raised the same claim as he raises in the instant action. However, this petition

Case 2:07-cv-00036-JAM-GGH Document 35 Filed 05/08/08 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

clearly challenged petitioner’s related criminal conviction and not the at-issue prison disciplinary

conviction. In order to properly exhaust his state court remedies, petitioner must file a habeas

corpus petition in the California Supreme Court challenging the prison disciplinary conviction on

the grounds raised in the instant petition. 

Accordingly, the court finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court

remedies. Respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted on this ground. 

Because the claims are not exhausted, the court need not reach the issue of

whether the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Once petitioner exhausts his claims

and files a new federal petition, respondent may re-raise this argument. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s February 7,

2008, motion to dismiss be granted on grounds that the claims raised in this action are not

exhausted.

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 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 Magistrate Judge’s 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: 05/09/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

yon36.157

Case 2:07-cv-00036-JAM-GGH Document 35 Filed 05/08/08 Page 3 of 3