Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01714/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01714-0/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

BENJAMIN LITTLEJOHN, JR. 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1714 DFL CMK P

vs. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

SACRAMENTO COUNTY 

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel

with this application for a writ of habeas corpus. 

The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court's

consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion

requirement by 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 amended petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that

petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner states that he “has not had a

Case 2:04-cv-01714-RRB-CMK Document 15 Filed 03/15/07 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

2

hearing yet on [his] writ. All they did was endorse and stamp [his] writ....” (Am. Pet. at 4.) The

claims have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation

that state court remedies are no longer available to him. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed 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, petitioner may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Findings

and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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 14, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01714-RRB-CMK Document 15 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 2