Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01161/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01161-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LEE JOHNSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1161 GEB EFB P

vs.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. This action proceeds on the June 15, 2007, petition. On November 20, 2007,

respondents moved to dismiss this action upon the ground petitioner failed to exhaust state

remedies. On January 10, 2008, the court ordered petitioner to file either an opposition to

respondents’ motion or a statement of no opposition. On March 12, 2008, petitioner filed a letter

stating:

I received a responce [sic] in regards to my writ of habeas corpus. It said, that I

did not present my claims with the California Supreme Court. My understanding

was you wouldn’t even look into this case unless I had exhausted my remedies. 

Your honor, I sent you the facts of the matter showing issues never mentioned. 

What I need from you is some direction a better understanding in how to perform

at this point. 

See March 12, 2008, Letter, at 1. Appended to petitioner’s letter is a petition for review directed

Case 2:07-cv-01161-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 05/02/08 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

to the California Supreme Court. 

A district court may not grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless “the applicant

has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State,” or unless there is no State

corrective process or “circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the

rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by presenting the “substance of his federal habeas corpus claim” to the state courts. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 (1971) (no exhaustion where the petitioner presented

operative facts but not legal theory to state courts); see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365

(1995)(to exhaust a claim, a state court “must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are

asserting claims under the United States Constitution”). A claim is unexhausted if any state

remedy is available. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999) (petitioner must seek

discretionary review from state court of last resort); Roberts v. Arave, 874 F.2d 528, 529 (9th

Cir. 1988)(no exhaustion where state supreme court referred petitioner’s appeal of trial court’s

denial of post-conviction relief to lower appellate court and petitioner failed to appeal lower

court’s disposition of that appeal to state supreme court). Unless the respondent specifically

consents to the court entertaining unexhausted claims, a petition containing such claims must be

dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3); Picard, 404 U.S. at 275. For a California prisoner to

exhaust, he must present his claims to the California Supreme Court on appeal in a petition for

review or on post-conviction in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Carey v. Saffold, 536

U.S. 223, 239-40 (2002) (describing California’s habeas corpus procedure); Gatlin v. Madding,

189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999) (to exhaust, prisoner must present claims on appeal to

California Supreme Court in a petition for review). 

////

////

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-01161-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 05/02/08 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

It appears from the documents submitted by petitioner in his letter to the court that he is

conceding failure to exhaust the claims presented in his present habeas petition. Accordingly, it

is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to exhaust available state

court remedies before applying for habeas corpus relief in this court. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: May 1, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01161-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 05/02/08 Page 3 of 3