Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02246/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02246-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HARDNEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2246 WBS CMK P

vs.

WONG, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the court is petitioner’s January 18, 2007

request to stay the proceedings. 

Petitioner’s federal habeas petition concerns a disciplinary violation for

masturbation. To show that he had exhausted his claim in state court, he attached a California

Supreme Court decision denying a habeas petition to the instant petition; however, that denial

concerned a disciplinary infraction for disobeying orders. Petitioner avers that the California

Supreme Court decision concerning disobeying orders was attached to the instant petition in

error. He claims to have filed a petition in the California Supreme Court concerning the

disciplinary violation for masturbation. 

Case 2:06-cv-02246-WBS-CMK Document 10 Filed 01/30/07 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

The federal court must dismiss a habeas petition if all claims are unexhausted. 

See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). In the instant case, all the claims in the

federal habeas petition are unexhausted. Accordingly, the court may not grant petitioner’s

request for a stay. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

petitioner's request for a stay of the proceedings be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the 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 Magistrate Judge's

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: January 25, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02246-WBS-CMK Document 10 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 2