Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00579/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00579-0/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH KHANISHU, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WARDEN SPEARMAN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-0579 AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

However, both the petition and the in forma pauperis application are deficient and must be 

dismissed. Petitioner fails to use the petition and in forma applications appropriate for this 

district. In addition, in his request to proceed in forma pauperis, petitioner fails to submit “the 

affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and a certificate from the warden or other appropriate 

officer of” his place of confinement showing the amount of funds he has in any prison account. 

See Rule 3(a)(2) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In his habeas application, petitioner fails to identify the nature of the conviction he is 

challenging or the length of his sentence. It is also unclear whether petitioner’s claims are 

exhausted. 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 

Case 2:14-cv-00579-TLN-CMK Document 7 Filed 03/13/14 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 

27 

28 

2

waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 Accordingly, a waiver of 

exhaustion 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. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

The petition will be dismissed with leave to amend, within thirty days, using the 

appropriate habeas form for this district. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 

will also be dismissed but petitioner will be permitted to file a new application, again using the 

appropriate form for this district, or he may pay the $5.00 filing fee, within thirty days. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The deficient petition and application to proceed in forma pauperis are dismissed with 

leave to amend within thirty days, using the forms appropriate for this district. Petitioner must 

file a new § 2254 petition and either a new application to proceed in forma pauperis or the $5.00 

filing fee. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this 

matter be dismissed; and 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner this court’s form for filing a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner. 

DATED: March 12, 2014 

 

1

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b)(2). 

Case 2:14-cv-00579-TLN-CMK Document 7 Filed 03/13/14 Page 2 of 2