Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02520/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02520-0/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

 

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Frederick Bennett, Sr.,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 03-2520 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

M. Knowles,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner was a prisoner when he commenced this action

seeking a writ of habeas corpus but has since been released to

parole. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moves to dismiss upon

the ground petitioner has failed to exhaust available state

remedies. Petitioner filed no opposition.

August 31, 2000, petitioner was convicted of three counts of

battery on a prisoner and was sentenced to four years in prison.

While in prison, petitioner lost time credits as a

disciplinary measure for violating grooming standards. He

Case 2:03-cv-02520-MCE -PAN Document 12 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 4
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

appealed but prison officials rejected it upon the ground it was

untimely.

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in

the Sacramento County Superior Court. That court denied relief.

December 3, 2003, petitioner filed his federal petition.

A district court may not grant a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus unless “the applicant has exhausted the remedies

available in the courts of the State,” or unless there is no

State corrective process or “circumstances exist that render such

process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by presenting both the operative facts and the legal

theory to the highest state court. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.

364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 (1971). 

General appeals to constitutional principles, such as due

process, equal protection and the right to a fair trial, are

insufficient to exhaust a claim. See Gray v. Netherland, 518

U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996). A petitioner must identify the

“specific federal constitutional guarantee,” Gray, 518 U.S. at

162-63, even if the facts make a constitutional theory “selfevident.” See Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7 (1982). 

A claim is unexhausted if any state remedy is available. See

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (petitioner must seek

discretionary review from state court of last resort); Roberts v.

Arave, 874 F.2d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1988)(no exhaustion where

state supreme court referred petitioner’s appeal of trial court’s

Case 2:03-cv-02520-MCE -PAN Document 12 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 4
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

denial of post-conviction relief to lower appellate court and

petitioner failed to appeal lower court’s disposition of that

appeal to state supreme court). An unexhausted petition must be

dismissed. Picard, 404 U.S. at 271. 

In his federal petition, petitioner seeks restoration of

time credits upon the ground he is exempt from the grooming

standards because of his religious beliefs.

Petitioner filed no appeal or petition in the California

Supreme Court challenging the revocation of his credits.

Accordingly, petitioner failed to exhaust available state

remedies.

In his petition, petitioner relies on Granberry v. Greer,

481 U.S. 129 (1987), to contend he should be excused from

exhausting because there has been a miscarriage of justice. 

In Granberry, the Supreme Court held that when a respondent

fails to assert non-exhaustion in the district court, the

appellate court must evaluate whether the interests of comity and

federalism are better served by reaching the merits (and possibly

granting relief) or by requiring additional state and district

court proceedings. Granberry, 481 U.S. at 134. But in light of

subsequent amendments to the habeas corpus statute, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b)(1), (3), and of respondent’s raising petitioner’s

failure to exhaust, Granberry is inapposite. 

For these reasons, I hereby recommend respondent’s September

10, 2004, motion to dismiss be granted and that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

Case 2:03-cv-02520-MCE -PAN Document 12 Filed 09/06/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: September 6, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02520-MCE -PAN Document 12 Filed 09/06/05 Page 4 of 4