Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01617/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01617-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY TATE, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERANA, et.al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-1617 REC DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING AMENDED PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 12]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 15, 2005. On 

February 7, 2006, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to submit an amended petition

clarifying his claims for relief and indicating whether he had sought relief at the California

Supreme Court. (Court Doc. 10.) Petitioner filed an amended petition on March 2, 2006. (Court

Doc. 12.)

DISCUSSION

On the form petition, Petitioner indicates that he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District and attaches a copy of the order

denying the petition. However, in response to the question whether Petitioner sought relief by a

higher court, i.e. the California Supreme Court, Petitioner writes “N/A.” (Amd. Pet. at 2.) 

As stated in the Court’s February 7, 2006, order, a petitioner who is in state custody and

Case 1:05-cv-01617-REC-DLB Document 13 Filed 03/20/06 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

27

28

 The Court bases this finding on the fact that Petitioner was specifically directed to inform the Court if he 1

sought relief at the California Supreme Court, to which Petitioner has responded that it was not applicable. (Amd.

Pet. at 2.)

2

wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust

state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to

the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged

constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55

(1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854

F.2d 1158, 1163 (9 Cir. 1988). th

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court

with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828,

829 (9 Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair th

opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's

factual and legal basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995) (legal

basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis).

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a federal

constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at 888; Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d

1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner wishes to claim that the trial court violated th

his due process rights “he must say so, not only in federal court but in state court.” Duncan, 513

U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888. 

Because Petitioner has failed to seek relief at the California Supreme Court, he has not

exhausted the state court remedies and the petition must dismissed, without prejudice. 

1

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant petition for writ

of habeas corpus be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the state court

remedies. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States District

Case 1:05-cv-01617-REC-DLB Document 13 Filed 03/20/06 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

27

28

3

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed

within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The

Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The

parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01617-REC-DLB Document 13 Filed 03/20/06 Page 3 of 3