Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02220/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02220-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN KEVIN FROST,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-2220 WBS GGH P

vs.

J. WALKER, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER AND

 / FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing

required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

This petition was filed on October 18, 2007, and received its first magistrate judge

reassignment on January 17, 2008, from Magistrate Judge Brennan to Magistrate Judge Moulds,

who subsequently reassigned the case to the undersigned, pursuant to Local Rule 81-190(d), on

January 25, 2008. The prior petition that served as the basis for the second reassignment was

erroneously stated, in the January 25, 2008 Order, to be No. CIV S-07-2220 WBS GGH P,

which, of course, is the number assigned to the instant case. The correct prior case number is

Case 2:07-cv-02220-WBS -GGH Document 8 Filed 03/18/08 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). 

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 2

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

No. 98-1949 WBS GGH P. The prior petition, challenging the same 1996 conviction at issue

herein, was dismissed, on March 30, 1999, without prejudice. Petitioner had failed to file a

second amended petition when his amended petition was dismissed for petitioner’s failure to set

forth those claims that for which exhaustion of state court remedies had been demonstrated.

Because petitioner’s first petition was dismissed without prejudice, the court will

not dismiss the present petition as successive. On the other hand, astonishingly, after nearly a

decade, petitioner still fails to demonstrate that he has exhausted his state court remedies as to

any claim set forth in this petition. 

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, 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). 

As noted, petitioner still does not show that his claims have been presented to the

California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer

available to petitioner, although on the face of it, this petition is patently untimely. Accordingly,

the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.

2

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 2:07-cv-02220-WBS -GGH Document 8 Filed 03/18/08 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

3

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and

recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney

General of the State of California; and 

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: 03/18/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

______________________

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:009

fros2220.103

Case 2:07-cv-02220-WBS -GGH Document 8 Filed 03/18/08 Page 3 of 3