Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01250-6/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

JASON DAVID YONAI,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1250 DFL CMK P

vs.

 MS. EVANS, Warden, et.al., 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this federal habeas action. 

Petitioner recently filed an amended petition and a “Motion to Compel Scope of Discovery and

Request for Immediate Relief.” (Doc. 28.) Petitioner’s motion states that his “request needs to be

granted at once” because his petition in the Supreme Court of California “was granted.” A review of

the attached order from the California Supreme Court reveals that petitioner’s petition No. S149683

was transferred to the Court of Appeal for determination of whether the petition was substantially

identical to a prior petition. 

Petitioner’s request for immediate relief will be denied; however it appears that

petitioner is asserting that his underlying habeas claim is not yet exhausted. Whether the habeas

claim is not exhausted is not clear. In the questions regarding exhaustion on his amended petition,

petitioner avers that he exhausted his claim and lists several state habeas proceedings. A review of

the California Supreme Court’s website reveals that petitioner has filed nineteen state habeas

Case 2:06-cv-01250-JKS-CMK Document 30 Filed 03/05/07 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

petitions. Accordingly, the court orders petitioner to notify the court in writing, within thirty days of

the date this order is filed, whether he has exhausted (meaning whether he has presented the exact

claim raised in this habeas petition to the California Supreme Court and that the court denied his

petition). Should plaintiff fail to respond, the court will assume that he has not yet exhausted this

claim in state court and will recommend dismissal for failure to exhaust. 

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to compel discovery and for immediate relief (doc. 28) is

denied.

2. Petitioner is ordered to notify the court in writing, within thirty days of the date

this order is filed, whether the claim in this habeas petition is fully exhausted. Failure to do so may

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: March 2, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01250-JKS-CMK Document 30 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 2