Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01562/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01562-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY MCCORVEY, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ROBERT H. OLEVRA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-01562-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

AS CONTAINING UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS 

ORDER DIRECTING THAT RESPONSE BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on December 7, 2005. (Doc. 1). Petitioner contends

that on August 8, 2005, the trial judge asked Petitioner if he would give up his time credits in

exchange for placement in a rehabilitation program. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Petitioner further alleges that

his attorney assured him that the Harbor Light Center would have a place for him soon and that

he would be transported there within a week. (Id.). On November 4, 2005, Petitioner alleges he

received a letter from the Harbor Light Center showing that Petitioner was eligible for its

programs starting on September 2, 2005. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Petitioner alleges he was sentenced to

265 days jail for possession of a controlled substance. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Petitioner appears to

allege both perjury on the part of his attorney and breach of contract as grounds for habeas relief. 

(Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). 

 

Case 1:05-cv-01562-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

2

DISCUSSION

The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition. The Court’s review 

reveals that Petitioner’s claims may be unexhausted. 

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by

a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501

U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct.

1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court

with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828,

829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair

opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's

factual and legal basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995) (legal

basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis),

superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 432-434, 120 S.Ct. 1479

(2000). Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising

a federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366, 115 S.Ct. at 888; Keating v. Hood,

133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner wishes to claim that the trial

court violated his due process rights “he must say so, not only in federal court but in state court.”

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888.

In this case, Petitioner alleges that he filed a state habeas petition in the Superior Court

for Fresno County, which was denied on November 18, 2005. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner does not

allege any other attempts to exhaust his claims in state court, either on direct appeal or through

collateral review. Thus, it appears that both claims are unexhausted and, therefore, the petition

itself contains only unexhausted claims.

///

Case 1:05-cv-01562-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

A copy of the California Supreme Court’s denial alone is insufficient to demonstrate exhaustion. The 1

proper documentation to provide would be a copy of the Petition filed in the California Supreme Court that includes

the claim now presented and a file stamp showing that it was indeed filed in that Court. 

3

The Court must dismiss a petition that contains unexhausted claims. Rose, 455 U.S. at

521-522, 102 S.Ct. at 1205.

Petitioner will be ordered to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed for

failing to exhaust state court remedies. Should it be the case that the claims were exhausted,

Petitioner should make clear when and in what court the claims were raised. If possible,

Petitioner should present to the Court documentary evidence that the claims were indeed

presented to the California Supreme Court.

1

If one, but not both, of the claims are unexhausted, Petitioner may also move to withdraw

the unexhausted claim and move to hold the petition in abeyance while the unexhausted claims

are exhausted in state court. See Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)(overruled on

other grounds as recognized in Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007); Ford v.

Hubbard, 305 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2002). However, such a request will not be considered by the

Court until the petition contains only exhausted claims and it is clear that the Petition is not

barred by the statute of limitations. 

Petitioner may also move to withdraw the entire Petition and return to federal court only

when he has finally exhausted his state court remedies. Petitioner should bear in mind, however,

that there exists a one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas corpus petitions.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Ford, 305 F.3d at 885-885. In most cases, the one-year period starts to

run on the date the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s direct review. See id. 

Although the limitations period tolls while a properly filed request for collateral review is

pending in state court, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), it does not toll for the time an application is

pending in federal court. Duncan v. Walker, 531 U.S. 991, 121 S.Ct. 480 (2001). 

Finally, Petitioner can do nothing and risk dismissal of the entire Petition should the

Court later find that the Petition contained unexhausted claims. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01562-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

4

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner SHOW CAUSE within

twenty (20) days of the date of service of this Order why the Petition should not be DISMISSED

for failing to exhaust state court remedies. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01562-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 12/06/07 Page 4 of 4