Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01976/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01976-2/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

ZACKARY T. HARRIS

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1976 LKK CMK P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Respondents. 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. Currently before the court is respondents’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state

remedies. (Doc. 12.) 

The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court's

consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can satisfy 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). 

Case 2:05-cv-01976-LKK -CMK Document 15 Filed 01/09/06 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

Respondents contend that petitioner has failed to exhaust his state remedies

because the only petition that petitioner has filed with the California Supreme Court challenging

his conviction was a petition for a writ of mandate, which was denied as moot. The denial of the

writ of mandate cannot be fairly taken as an adjudication of the merits of petitioners claim when

normal channels for relief are available. See Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U.S. 482, 488 (1975).

Petitioner had normal channels of relief available to him—petitioner filed a habeas petition in the

California Court of Appeal. (Doc. 13, Lodged Documents 3 through 8.) Accordingly, the

undersigned finds that petitioner’s claims have not been fairly presented to the California

Supreme Court, 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, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be

served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: January 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01976-LKK -CMK Document 15 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2