Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01424/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01424-0/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

 Good cause appearing, respondent’s request to substitute Joe McGrath as respondent in

1

this action will be granted.

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 2

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD J. PAYNE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1424 MCE PAN P

vs.

JOE McGRATH, ORDER AND 1

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the

court on respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

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). A waiver of exhaustion, 2

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

Case 2:05-cv-01424-MCE -PAN Document 11 Filed 03/08/06 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

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 3

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

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all 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.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

After reviewing the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the papers filed in

support of and in opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss, the court finds that petitioner has

failed to exhaust state court remedies. None of the claims raised in this action have been

presented to the California Supreme Court. Further, petitioner’s contentions that state court

remedies are unavailable to him for the claims at bar are without merit. Accordingly,

respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted and the instant action should be dismissed

without prejudice.3

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s request to substitute Joe McGrath as respondent in this matter is

granted; 

2. Joe McGrath is substituted as respondent in place of Jeanne Woodford; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s October 4, 2005 motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state

remedies. 

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, any party may file

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

Case 2:05-cv-01424-MCE -PAN Document 11 Filed 03/08/06 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

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 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). 

DATED: March 7, 2006.

12

payn1424.103

Case 2:05-cv-01424-MCE -PAN Document 11 Filed 03/08/06 Page 3 of 3