Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00017/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00017-0/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

JOE SHERMAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0017 DFL GGH P

vs.

YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al., ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition, petitioner stated that three of his claims were not exhausted: 

1) Fourth Amendment violation; 2) Equal Protection violation; 3) violation of right to speedy

trial.

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,

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

Case 2:06-cv-00017-DFL-GGH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 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

2

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

The United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not

entertain a petition for habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with

respect to each of the claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S. Ct. 1198 (1982). A

mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed.

On February 16, 2006, the court filed an order stating that petitioner had three

options: 1) voluntarily dismiss the entire action so that he may exhaust his unexhausted claims;

2) voluntarily dismiss the unexhausted claims and proceed on the exhausted claims only; or 3)

request a stay of this action so that he may return to state court and exhaust his unexhausted

claims. The court granted petitioner twenty days to inform the court how he intended to proceed.

In the February 16, 2006, order the court advised petitioner that in Rhines v.

Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 U.S. 1528 (2005) the Supreme Court recently held that a habeas

petition may only be stayed if the petitioner can show good cause for his failure to exhaust his

claims first in state court. The court advised petitioner that pursuant to Rhines, in order for this

action to be administratively stayed, petitioner must show good cause for his failure to exhaust

all of his claims in state court before filing this petition. The court advised petitioner that he

should file briefing addressing this matter if he chose to seek a stay of this action. 

On February 27, 2006, petitioner filed a request to stay this action. Petitioner did

not address the issue of good cause for his request. On March 8, 2006, petitioner filed a motion

to “reinstate” this action. Petitioner states that he anticipates that the California Supreme Court

will fail to “uphold justice” by denying his habeas petition, as it has done in the past. Because

exhaustion is futile, petitioner states that he should be able to proceed with the instant action.

There is no futility exception, as described by petitioner, to the exhaustion

requirement. Because petitioner has failed to show good cause for his failure to exhaust his

claims before filing this action, the court cannot stay his petition. The petition must be dismissed

because it contains unexhausted and exhausted claims.

Case 2:06-cv-00017-DFL-GGH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s March 8, 2006, motion

to reinstate, construed as a request to proceed on his exhausted and unexhausted claims, is

denied;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

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, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: 3/24/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

sher17.156

Case 2:06-cv-00017-DFL-GGH Document 10 Filed 03/24/06 Page 3 of 3