Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00670/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00670-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH D. PROPHET, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0670 MCE CMK P

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTION OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER &

 / 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.

Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this

action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

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 2:07-cv-00670-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 05/25/07 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

This case was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

1

Petitioner has not named the proper respondent in this matter. "A petitioner for habeas 2

corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the

petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a),

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). In the instant action, petitioner has named the director of corrections of

California. This individual is not the proper respondent in this action. Petitioner is cautioned that

should he return to this court after exhaustion, he should name the proper respondent. Failure to do

so will result in the dismissal of the petition with leave to amend. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.

2

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

failed to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner states that “other than a direct appeal from the

judgement of conviction and sentence” he has filed petitions with the “United States District

Court, Eastern District of California.” (Pet. at 3.) Petitioner specifically directs the court to two

cases: S-06-2822 FCD EFB and S-06-2160 MCE CMK. Petitioner’s claims have have not been 1

presented to the California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court

remedies are no longer available to him. Before filing a petition in federal court, the petitioner

must exhaust his petition–meaning he must allow the California state courts a chance to consider

his claims. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a

writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 2

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00670-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 05/25/07 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

3

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: May 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00670-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 3