Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01193/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01193-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA N. HARRELL, No. 2:15-CV-1193-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

S.M. SALINAS,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to

dismiss (Doc. 19). 

Petitioner was convicted on May 12, 2015, of second degree burglary, possession

of a check with intent to defraud, and receipt of stolen property. According to respondent, the

instant petition is premature because petitioner has not completed the process of exhausting state

court remedies. Specifically, petitioner’s direct appeal is still pending before the California

Court of Appeal in case no. A145661.1

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), the exhaustion of available state remedies is required

before claims can be granted by the federal court in a habeas corpus case. See Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509 (1982); see also Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003); Hunt v.

1 The court may take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of

matters of public record. See U.S. v. 14.02 Acres of Land, 530 F.3d 883, 894 (9th Cir. 2008). 

1

Case 2:15-cv-01193-GEB-CMK Document 31 Filed 10/18/16 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

Pliler, 336 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2003). Claims may be denied on the merits notwithstanding lack of

exhaustion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). “A petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement

in two ways: (1) by providing the highest state court with an opportunity to rule on the merits of

the claim . . .; or (2) by showing that at the time the petitioner filed the habeas petition in federal

court no state remedies are available to the petitioner and the petitioner has not deliberately

by-passed the state remedies.” Batchelor v. Cupp , 693 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations

omitted). The exhaustion doctrine is based on a policy of federal and state comity, designed to

give state courts the initial opportunity to correct alleged constitutional deprivations. See Picard

v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971); see also Rose, 455 U.S. at 518. 

Here, petitioner’s direct appeal is still pending. Thus, petitioner has not yet

presented his claims to the highest state court and the instant federal petition is unexhausted and

should be dismissed without prejudice. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that respondent’s motion to

dismiss (Doc. 19) be granted. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 17, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:15-cv-01193-GEB-CMK Document 31 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2