Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01621-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOYDD DEMETRIUS IRVING, No. CIV S-05-1621-LKK-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for

a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), filed on August 15, 2005.

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary

dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the

instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. In particular, the

exhaustion of available state remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal court’s

consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v.

Case 2:05-cv-01621-LKK -CMK Document 6 Filed 12/13/05 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

A petitioner may, however, be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state

1

court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion 1

requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all

claims before presenting them to the federal court. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276

(1971), Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). Upon review of the instant

petition, the court concludes that petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies as to any of

his claims. Specifically, petitioner did not appeal to California’s court of last resort or file any

state post-conviction petitions and/or motions. Moreover, petitioner has not alleged that such

remedies are no longer available. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition for

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

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 ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: December 9, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01621-LKK -CMK Document 6 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2