Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01865/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01865-1/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

JOHN LAMONT WINN, 

Petitioner, No. 2:08-cv-1865-JAM JFM (HC) 

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is filed on the form used by the Northern

District of California. On July 30, 2008, petitioner was advised that he must file an application

to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within thirty days. On August 11, 2008, the

action was transferred to the Eastern District. On August 22, 2008, petitioner filed a request to

proceed in forma pauperis along with a certified trust account statement. 

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner challenges his February 13, 2007 conviction. 

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

Case 2:08-cv-01865-JWS Document 11 Filed 08/29/08 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. 28 1

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

be waived explicitly by respondents’ counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, 1

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). 

The state court has had an opportunity to rule on the merits when the petitioner

has fairly presented the claim to that court. The fair presentation requirement is met where the

petitioner has described the operative facts and legal theory on which his claim is based. Picard,

404 U.S. at 277-78. Generally, it is “not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal

claim were before the state courts . . . or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made.”

Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). Instead, 

[i]f state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged

violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted

to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United

States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an

evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so,

not only in federal court, but in state court.

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). Accordingly, “a claim for relief in habeas corpus

must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the

facts which entitle the petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 116 S. Ct. 2074,

2081 (1996). The United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not

entertain a petition for habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with

respect to each of the claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). A mixed petition

containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed.

Petitioner raises three grounds for relief: “washed out prison prior used after 5

years agreement; the judge was prejudiced on verdict of jury; and dismissed prior allegations.” 

Case 2:08-cv-01865-JWS Document 11 Filed 08/29/08 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

 “Violation of due process of Law & the 6th and 14th Amendments Right to a Jury Trial 2

that a possession of a controlled substance is a lesser included offense of transportation for

personal use.” (Petition at 3.)

 Petitioner is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed on an amended petition raising only 3

exhausted claims he will risk forfeiting consideration of the unexhausted claims in this or any

other federal court. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991); see also Rose, 455 U.S. at

520-21; Rule 9(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

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

of 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

3

(Pet. at 4.) Petitioner acknowledges that these claims were not raised in the California Supreme

Court. 

After reviewing the record in this action, the court finds that petitioner has failed

to exhaust state court remedies as to all three claims raised herein. Accordingly, the petition

contains only unexhausted claims and must be dismissed. However, petitioner previously

exhausted two other claims in the California Supreme Court. Good cause appearing, petitioner 2

will be granted thirty days to file an amended petition raising only exhausted claims.

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. 

3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended

petition raising only exhausted claims. Failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: August 28, 2008.

/001; winn1865.103

Case 2:08-cv-01865-JWS Document 11 Filed 08/29/08 Page 3 of 3