Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00172/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00172-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH JAMES WEST,

Petitioner,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00172-ADA-CDB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMSS AND 

DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PETITONER’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(ECF Nos. 19, 27)

Petitioner Kenneth James West is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was assigned to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On March 15, 2022, Petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

(ECF No. 14.) On July 22, 2022, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s first amended 

petition. (ECF No. 19.) On August 11, 2022, Petitioner filed a response. (ECF No. 22.) On 

November 30, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge found that “Petitioner’s federal petition for 

writ of habeas corpus is deficient for advancing claims that are wholly unexhausted and for 

asserting an exhausted claim that is not sufficiently pled.” (ECF No. 27 at 6.) The Magistrate 

Judge recommended Petitioner’s first amended petition be dismissed without prejudice and 

Petitioner be provided an opportunity to file a second amended petition. (Id.)

Case 1:22-cv-00172-KES-CDB Document 29 Filed 03/07/23 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

27

28

2

On December 19, 2022, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 

recommendations. (ECF No. 28.) Petitioner asserts all his state remedies have been exhausted 

and attaches a copy of the Supreme Court of California’s denial of his petition for review. (Id.) 

In addition, Petitioner restates the same arguments he advanced in his opposition to Respondent’s 

motion to dismiss for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id.; see ECF Nos. 14, 22.) 

These arguments are unavailing. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has 

exhausted one claim that he presented to the state court – ineffective assistance of counsel for 

failing to object at sentencing. (See ECF No. 20-2 at 3; ECF No. 20-6 at 2.) The fact that 

Petitioner has exhausted some claims, however, does not mean that any other claim he may have 

– like the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims he presents in his petition – are now ripe for 

review in federal court. Additionally, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner 

has not pleaded his one exhausted claim with sufficient specificity. Petitioner states that his 

counsel “refused to object to sentence or restitution imposed,” but he does not explain the factual 

circumstances that suggested the need to make such an objection at sentencing. The Magistrate 

Judge has appropriately suggested dismissing the petition without prejudice so that Petitioner can 

amend the petition, and, if desired, request a stay of the petition in this court in order to exhaust 

claims in state court.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 30, 2022, (ECF No. 27), 

are adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 19), is granted;

3. Petitioner’s first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to show exhaustion of state remedies and failure to state a 

cognizable federal claim;

Case 1:22-cv-00172-KES-CDB Document 29 Filed 03/07/23 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

27

28

3

4. Petitioner shall be provided thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order 

to file a second amended petition with claims that are fully exhausted and 

sufficiently pleaded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00172-KES-CDB Document 29 Filed 03/07/23 Page 3 of 3