Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00489/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00489-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN M. TIDWELL, SR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-11-0489 CMK (TEMP) P

vs.

M. MARTEL, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

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,

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

/////

Case 2:11-cv-00489-JKS Document 5 Filed 03/03/11 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 limitations period 1

for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year limitations

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 limitations period

is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral relief 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). 

After reviewing the petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus, the court

finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies with respect to claim 3. 

Accordingly, the petition is mixed containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims.

Petitioner has two options. Within thirty days petitioner may: (1) file an amended

habeas application omitting all claims except those claims which have been presented to and

rejected by the California Supreme Court; or (2) file a request to stay this action pending the 1

exhaustion of state court remedies with respect to the unexhausted claim. Petitioner is informed

that to be entitled to a stay, he must show good cause for his failure to exhaust earlier, and that

the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). 

Petitioner’s failure to comply with one of these alternatives within thirty days will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days within which to inform the court how he

wishes to proceed with this matter by choosing one of the alternatives described above. If 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:11-cv-00489-JKS Document 5 Filed 03/03/11 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

petitioner fails to so inform that court within thirty days, the court will recommend that this

action be dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: March 2, 2011

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

kc

tidw0489.103

Case 2:11-cv-00489-JKS Document 5 Filed 03/03/11 Page 3 of 3