Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00911/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00911-9/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

JOSEPH SHERMAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-06-0911 MCE KJM P 

vs.

YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2004 Yolo County

convictions for interference with the operation of a university and battery of a police officer. 

Respondents have filed a motion asking that this matter be dismissed for

petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies with respect to his claims. Respondents

acknowledge that petitioner has filed several actions in the California Supreme Court, but assert

none of those actions concern the convictions at issue in this case. Petitioner counters in his

traverse that he did exhaust state court remedies in California Supreme Court Case Number

S-139811. The docket for that case reveals that it was a petition for collateral relief filed by

petitioner under the name of “Joe Sherman.” Respondents have not provided the court with any

further information about that case.

Case 2:06-cv-00911-JKS Document 33 Filed 05/15/08 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

In light of the foregoing, respondents have not shown that petitioner did not

exhaust state court remedies with respect to his claims. Therefore, their motion to dismiss

should be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (docket #25) be denied; and

2. Respondents be ordered to file their answer within sixty days. 

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, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: May 14, 2008. 

1

sher0911.157

Case 2:06-cv-00911-JKS Document 33 Filed 05/15/08 Page 2 of 2