Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02559/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02559-1/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 

RICHARD GAVIN AGUIRRE,

Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.

Respondents.

No. 2:15-cv-2559 KJN P 

ORDER

 Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the 

undersigned. (ECF No. 4.) 

Petitioner originally filed this action as a civil rights action. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner did 

not file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because petitioner challenged the validity of 

his criminal conviction, and requested that the court find him not guilty, the undersigned 

construed this action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF 

No. 3). Petitioner was granted thirty days to file a habeas corpus petition and an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.) 

Thirty days passed and petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition (ECF No. 5), but failed 

to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the undersigned orders this 

Case 2:15-cv-02559-KJN Document 6 Filed 01/29/16 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

action dismissed for petitioner’s failure to file an in forma pauperis application. 

The undersigned also observes that, after reviewing the habeas corpus petition, it is clear 

that petitioner has not exhausted 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 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 

(1986). 

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has failed to 

exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been presented to the California Supreme 

Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to 

petitioner.1 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated: January 29, 2016 

Ag2559.fifp 

 

1

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

Case 2:15-cv-02559-KJN Document 6 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2