Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02262/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02262-3/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

DENNIS PATRICK MCKNIGHT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2262 LKK PAN P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 27, 2006, respondent filed a motion

to dismiss for petitioner’s failure to exhaust available state remedies with respect to his claims

his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and his trial counsel was ineffective. On

March 22, 2006, petitioner filed a document conceding that he failed to present these claims to

the California Supreme Court and consenting to dismissal without prejudice. Petitioner does not

request the court to delete unexhausted claims and hold this matter in abeyance while he exhausts

available state remedies. See Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005).

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

Case 2:05-cv-02262-LKK -EFB Document 14 Filed 04/21/06 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

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

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

 Petitioner may now proceed in one of two ways. He may exhaust the unexhausted 2

claims in state court by presenting those claims using the appropriate procedure to the California

courts. He is advised to allege with particularity all the facts concerning these claims. After

returning to the state court his claims may then be considered by the federal court. In the

alternative, petitioner may file a new petition in this court in which he raises only the exhausted

claims. If petitioner chooses the second method, however, the court cautions that he will risk

forfeiting consideration of the unexhausted claims in this or any other federal court. See

McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991); see also Rose, 455 U.S. at 520-21; Rule 9(b), Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

 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

be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, 1

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 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). The United States

Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not entertain a petition for habeas corpus

unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with respect to each of the claims raised. Rose

v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). A mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted

claims must be dismissed.2

Having reviewed the petition and respondent’s motion, the court finds petitioner

has failed to exhaust available state court remedies. 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 petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a

writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02262-LKK -EFB Document 14 Filed 04/21/06 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

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. The 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: April 20, 2006.

\004

\mckn2262.mtd 107

Case 2:05-cv-02262-LKK -EFB Document 14 Filed 04/21/06 Page 3 of 3