Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00077/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00077-0/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

JEFFREY PRICE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-0077 GEB KJM P

vs.

TOM CAREY, Warden,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed an application for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant action in response to

the California Board of Prison Terms’ (BPT) denying petitioner parole in 1999. 

In 2003, the BPT granted petitioner parole. However, the decision to grant

petitioner parole was reversed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2004. In September 2004, the

court ordered petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice

to petitioner filing a new habeas action against Governor Schwarzenegger. Petitioner has filed a

response to the order to show cause objecting to dismissal. Respondent has filed a response

arguing dismissal is appropriate.

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-00077-JKS Document 23 Filed 06/15/05 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

1

 Petitioner asserts he should not be required to exhaust state court remedies with respect

to any claims against Governor Schwarzenegger, as exhaustion would be futile. However,

petitioner has not made clear the specific claims he would or could assert against Governor

Schwarzenegger, putting a determination of futility beyond this court’s reach. If petitioner truly

believes exhaustion would be futile, the proper course of action would appear to be to commence

a new action and present the futility argument therein as excusing exhaustion.

2

 The court will recommend dismissal. The allegations in petitioner’s current

application concern denials of constitutional rights by the BPT. Petitioner seeks relief from the

BPT. But, petitioner now has obtained the relief he sought from the BPT. If petitioner is being

held in prison in violation of the constitution, it is due to the actions of Governor

Schwarzenegger, whose authority regarding parole flows from the state constitution and statutory

authority separate from the statutes governing the BPT’s decisions. See Cal. Const., art. V,

section 8(b) & Cal. Penal Code § 3041.2; cf. Cal. Penal Code §§ 3040 et seq., 5075 et seq. Any

relief petitioner seeks thus should be from the governor. Petitioner is free to file new a habeas

action challenging the actions of Governor Schwarzenegger. However, petitioner is cautioned

that before he may assert claims against Governor Schwarzenegger he is required to first present

those claims to the California Supreme Court.1 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.

270, 276 (1971).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be dismissed without prejudice.

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 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 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-00077-JKS Document 23 Filed 06/15/05 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

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: June 14, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

price0077.157

Case 2:02-cv-00077-JKS Document 23 Filed 06/15/05 Page 3 of 3