Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01772/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01772-6/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

MICHAEL MESSENGER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1772 RRB GGH P

vs.

BILL LOCKYER, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

corpus filed May 30, 2007. For the following reasons, the court recommends that this action be

dismissed based on petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies.

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

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

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, 92 S. Ct. 509, 512

(1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01772-JKS-GGH Document 25 Filed 08/03/07 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

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 1

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). 

2

After reviewing the petition, the court determined that the claims raised were not

exhausted. On June 28, 2007, the court ordered petitioner to show cause why the petition should

not be dismissed based on his failure to exhaust state court remedies. On July 17, 2007,

petitioner filed a response to the show cause order. Petitioner admits that the claims are not

exhausted, but makes several arguments regarding why he should be excused from exhausting

state court remedies. Petitioner argues, for example, that he will be irreparably injured if he is

required to return to state court.

None of the reasons proposed by petitioner to excuse his failure to exhaust are

meritorious. Accordingly, the court recommends that this action be dismissed for petitioner’s

failure to exhaust state court remedies.1

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s

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

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings

and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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: 8/3/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

mess1772.fr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01772-JKS-GGH Document 25 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2