Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00730/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00730-4/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). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY GUTIERREZ, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0730 FCD KJM P

vs.

WARDEN, CSP SOLANO,

Respondent. ORDER AND

 / FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 regarding a 2001 conviction from the Superior Court

of Yuba County. This action is currently proceeding on the second amended petition filed by

petitioner on April 14, 2005.

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 2:05-cv-00730-FCD-KJM Document 17 Filed 04/02/07 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 statute of

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

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 second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court

finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been

presented to the California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court

remedies are no longer available to petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed

without prejudice.2

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.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner's second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for

failure to exhaust state remedies; and

2. This case be closed. 

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

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

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00730-FCD-KJM Document 17 Filed 04/02/07 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

3

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 30, 2007. 

1

guit0730.103

Case 2:05-cv-00730-FCD-KJM Document 17 Filed 04/02/07 Page 3 of 3