Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02869/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02869-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN KILLINGSWORTH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2869 LKK EFB P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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 supporting affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of

suit. Accordingly, the request is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

It is unclear whether petitioner seeks, by this filing, to challenge the fact of his conviction

based on an exhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claim; or, to challenge the duration of his

confinement based on an unexhausted claim that the Determinate Sentencing Act (“DSA”) is not

applicable to inmates like petitioner who are sentenced indeterminately under California Penal

Code § 1168(b). 

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-02869-LKK -EFB Document 5 Filed 01/17/07 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

2

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are required first to exhaust state

judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the

highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim

they seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v.. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-

16 (1982). Requiring exhaustion of claims provides state courts with “the first opportunity to

correct federal constitutional errors and minimizes federal interference and disruption of state

judicial proceedings.” Rose, 455 U.S. at 514. If the petition combines exhausted and

unexhausted claims, the district court must dismiss the entire habeas petition without reaching

the merits of any of its claims. Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir.1988).

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

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to amend

within thirty days from the date of this order;

3. Any amended petition must bear the case number assigned to this action and the title

“Amended Petition”; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court's form for application

for writ of habeas corpus. 

DATED: January 17, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02869-LKK -EFB Document 5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 2