Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01613/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01613-0/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

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

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIAMON ANTWUAN BASPED,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1613 GEB KJM 

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

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

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

 A waiver of exhaustion,

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). 

Case 2:07-cv-01613-GEB-CHS Document 4 Filed 01/10/08 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

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year limitations

period for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year

limitations 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

limitations period is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other

collateral relief is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner is advised that at least a portion of the

limitations period appears to have elapsed.

2

After reviewing the petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus, the court

finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies with respect to all of his claims

except claim one. Accordingly, the petition is mixed containing both exhausted and unexhausted

claims.

Petitioner has two options. Within thirty days (1) petitioner may file an amended

habeas application omitting all claims except claim one2

 or (2) file a request to stay this action

pending the exhaustion of state court remedies with respect to the unexhausted claims. 

Petitioner is informed that to be entitled to a stay, he must show good cause for his failure to

exhaust earlier, and that the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious. Rhines v. Weber,

544 U.S. 269 (2005). Petitioner’s failure to comply with one of these alternatives within thirty

days will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner is

granted thirty days within which to inform the court how he wishes to proceed with this matter

by choosing one of the alternatives described above. If petitioner fails to so inform the court

within thirty days, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: January 9, 2008. 

1/bb

basp1613.103(8.8.07)

Case 2:07-cv-01613-GEB-CHS Document 4 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 2