Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01187/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01187-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD FORBES, No. 2:06-cv-1187-MCE-GGH-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 28, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The gravamen of this action is petitioner’s claim that the Board of Prison Terms violated

the terms of Valdivia v. Schwarzenneger, CIV S-94-0671 LKK GGH P during petitioner’s parole

revocation proceedings. 

Case 2:06-cv-01187-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 08/30/06 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

The magistrate judge recommended that this action be dismissed based on petitioner’s failure to

exhaust state court remedies. In his objections, petitioner states that the Solano County Superior

Court denied his petition on grounds that petitioner was required to present his claims in

Validivia, supra. See Superior Court order attached to objections. Petitioner argues that no

further state court remedies are available based on the Superior Court’s order.

Despite the Superior Court’s order, petitioner may still file a habeas corpus petition in the

California Supreme Court raising the claims raised in the instant action. This action is

distinguishable from Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008 (9 Cir. 1999). In Swoopes, the Ninth th

Circuit found that Arizona prisoners were not required to seek discretionary post-conviction

review with the Arizona Supreme Court in order to exhaust state court remedies. Because the

Arizona Supreme Court had held that a decision by the Arizona Court of Appal exhausted a

defendant’s right of appeal, post-conviction review before the Arizona Supreme Court was not an

available remedy. 196 F.3d at 1009. In contrast, the California Supreme Court has not held that

no further review is available beyond the denial of a habeas petition by a California Superior

Court.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304,

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01187-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 08/30/06 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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 28, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust

state remedies. 

DATED: August 29, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01187-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 3