Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01973/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01973-1/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 

KEVIN YARBER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 

Respondent.1

No. 2:15-cv-1973 AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner at the California City Correctional Facility, challenging his 

September 2014 conviction and sentence for violation of California Penal Code section 273.5 

(corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant) in the Placer County Superior Court. Petitioner 

proceeds pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and 

request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and Local Rule 

305(a). See ECF No. 5. 

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

 

1

 A federal petition for writ of habeas corpus must name as respondent the state officer having 

custody of the petitioner. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases in the United States District Courts; Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 354-55 (9th Cir. 2004); 

Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, David B. 

Long, Warden of the California City Correctional Facility, is substituted as respondent herein. 

Case 2:15-cv-01973-AC Document 7 Filed 09/30/15 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

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

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court is required to conduct 

a preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Pursuant to 

Rule 4, this court must summarily dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and 

any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 

Review of the instant petition demonstrates that petitioner is challenging his conviction 

and sentence on the grounds that: (1) his public defender, John Mustapha, provided ineffective 

assistance of counsel, apparently in recommending that petitioner enter a plea of nolo contendere; 

and (2) the Placer County Superior Court Reporter, Tiffany Huffman, assigned to petitioner’s 

court proceedings had a conflict of interest because she is the sister of petitioner’s cohabitant 

(“the victim in my case”). The petition asserts claims of “conflict of interest/deliberate 

indifference/Eighth Amendment,” ECF No. 1 at 4, and racial profiling, id. at 5. Petitioner has 

also sought to pursue these matters in other cases filed in this court.2

Review of the petition also demonstrates that it is wholly unexhausted in the state courts. 

See ECF No. 1 at 6. The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to the federal 

court exercising jurisdiction over a federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); see also 

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by 

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all of his claims 

before 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. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

 

2

 This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other courts. See 

United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631 

F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts 

that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned). In Yarber v. Superior Court of Placer County, Case No. 2:14-cv-00846 DAD P, 

petitioner alleged due process violations by the superior court and ineffective assistance of 

counsel. The case was dismissed without prejudice, under the Younger abstention doctrine, see 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because filed during the pendency of petitioner’s state 

criminal proceedings. In Yarber v. Mustapha et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01972 CKD P, petitioner is 

currently pursuing a civil rights complaint against defendants Mustapha and Huffman. 

Case 2:15-cv-01973-AC Document 7 Filed 09/30/15 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

When presented with a wholly unexhausted federal habeas corpus petition, a federal district court 

must dismiss the petition. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(completely unexhausted petition must be dismissed without prejudice). Petitioner must exhaust 

his claims in the California Supreme Court before bringing them in federal court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, is granted; 

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is dismissed without 

prejudice because fully unexhausted, see Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; 

3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253; and 

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 

DATED: September 30, 2015 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01973-AC Document 7 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 3