Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00487/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00487-1/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

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

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY MANUEL LECHUGA,

Petitioner, No. CIV-07-0487 RRB KJM P 

vs.

D.K. SISTO,

 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

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 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00487-JAM-CHS Document 14 Filed 10/02/07 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

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

for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year limitations

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 limitations period

is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral relief is

pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner is advised that at least a portion of the limitations period

appears to have elapsed.

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). 

After reviewing the petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus, the court

finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies with respect to claims three and

four. Accordingly, the petition is mixed containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims.

Petitioner has two options. Within thirty days: (1) petitioner may file an amended

habeas application omitting claims three and four;2

 or (2) file a request to stay this action

pending the exhaustion of state court remedies with respect to the unexhausted claims. 

Petitioner is informed that to be entitled to a stay, he must show good cause for his failure to

exhaust earlier, and that the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious. Rhines v. Weber,

544 U.S. 269 (2005). Petitioner’s failure to comply with one of these alternatives within thirty

days will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days within which to inform the court how he

wishes to proceed with this matter by choosing one of the alternatives described above. If

Case 2:07-cv-00487-JAM-CHS Document 14 Filed 10/02/07 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

petitioner fails to so inform that court within thirty days, the court will recommend that this

action be dismissed without prejudice. 

 3. Petitioner’s May 1, 2007 request for appointment of counsel is denied without

prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: October 2, 2007. 

1

lech0487.103(5.15.07)

Case 2:07-cv-00487-JAM-CHS Document 14 Filed 10/02/07 Page 3 of 3