Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01025-3/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

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

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD C. JACOBS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1025 FCD GGH P

vs.

KATIE MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee

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). 

Case 2:06-cv-01025-FCD-GGH Document 10 Filed 10/17/06 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

 Whether or not the California courts would apply the “Dixon/Harris” rule (cannot bring 2

a claim in habeas which should have been raised on direct review) is best left in the first instance

with the state courts.

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 3

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). 

2

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

failed to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner alleges that he raised his double jeopardy claim

in a petition for review. Attached to the petition as an exhibit is a letter to petitioner from the

Clerk of the California Supreme Court. The letter states that the petition for review was being

returned to petitioner because it was not timely filed. 

Because the California Supreme Court did not file and consider the merits of the

petition for review, the court finds that the double jeopardy claim has not been presented to the

California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer

available to petitioner. It appears that petitioner could file a habeas corpus petition with the 2

California Supreme Court. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.

3

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is

directed to serve a copy of these findings and recommendations together with a copy of the

petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney General of the State of California; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of

habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this 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

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01025-FCD-GGH Document 10 Filed 10/17/06 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

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 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: 10/17/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

jacobs1025.fr

Case 2:06-cv-01025-FCD-GGH Document 10 Filed 10/17/06 Page 3 of 3