Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01516/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01516-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD JASON DIFFIN,

Petitioner,

v.

PLACER COUNTY,

Respondents.

No. 2:15-cv-1516 KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing 

required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

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).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 presenting them to 

 

1 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(2).

Case 2:15-cv-01516-KJN Document 7 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 

1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

After reviewing the amended petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has 

failed to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner did not seek review in the California Supreme 

Court. Rather, petitioner claims he filed a motion in the Placer County Superior Court, and then 

filed the instant habeas petition. (ECF No. 6 at 2-3.) Petitioner’s 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:

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order together with a copy of 

the amended petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney General of the State of California; 

and 

3. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust 

state remedies, without prejudice. 

Dated: August 28, 2015

/diff1516.103

 

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).

Case 2:15-cv-01516-KJN Document 7 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 2