Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02208/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02208-2/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

DELBERT WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2208 FCD DAD P

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a

second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In this

regard, on February 21, 2008, the undersigned issued an order dismissing petitioner’s amended

petition because of its failure both to name a proper respondent and to provide relevant

information regarding the nature of the petition required by the form habeas petition. The court

granted petitioner leave to file a second amended petition. On March 4, 2008, petitioner filed a

second amended petition which again fails to identify a proper respondent. More importantly,

petitioner has clarified his allegations with respect to exhaustion. In his earlier petitions,

petitioner had indicated in conclusory fashion that his claims had been presented to the California

Supreme Court. However, in his second amended petition he makes clear that such is not the

case. Instead, petitioner alleges that he pursued both his direct appeal and his petition for state

Case 2:06-cv-02208-FCD-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/17/08 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. See 1

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 2

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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

2

habeas relief only to the California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District. (Sec.

Am. Pet. at 2-4.) Petitioner alleges that he did not pursue his claims with the California Supreme

Court because he was “unaware” that he could do so. (Id.) Thus, the second amended petition

on its face concedes a failure to exhaust.

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it

must be waived explicitly by the respondent’s counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver

1

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

requirement by fairly presenting to the highest state court all federal claims before presenting

them to the federal court. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor,

404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996); Middleton v. Cupp,

768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). 

After reviewing the second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court

finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust 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.2

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is

directed to serve a copy of these findings and recommendations together with a copy of the

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02208-FCD-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/17/08 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

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

California; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s second amended application

for a writ of habeas corpus, filed on March 4, 2008, 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. 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. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 17, 2008.

DAD:4

will2208.103

Case 2:06-cv-02208-FCD-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 3