Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02638/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02638-2/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 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRANK D. MILLS, Sr., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-2638-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner, a former county prisoner who proceeds pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.1 

 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 

petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief. Here, petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction imposed 

by the Placer County Superior Court pursuant to California Penal Code § 290(a), for failure to 

register as a sex offender. ECF No. 1. The court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of 

the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. As explained below, this action must be dismissed because 

///// 

 1

 On February 5, 2015, the court recommended that this action be dismissed after 

petitioner failed to pay the filing fee or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In light of 

petitioner’s recent payment, the court will withdraw that recommendation. 

Case 2:14-cv-02638-MCE-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/10/15 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 

27 

28 

2

petitioner has failed to exhaust available state remedies with respect to the claims presented in his 

petition.2 

 A district court may not grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless “the applicant 

has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State,” or unless there is no State 

corrective process or “circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights 

of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by 

presenting the “substance of his federal habeas corpus claim” to the state courts. Picard v. 

Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 (1971); see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). For a 

California prisoner to exhaust, he must present his claims to the California Supreme Court on 

appeal in a petition for review or on post-conviction in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 

Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 223, 239-40 (2002) (describing California’s habeas corpus procedure); 

Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999) (to exhaust, prisoner must present claims on 

appeal to California Supreme Court in a petition for review). Unless the respondent specifically 

consents to the court entertaining unexhausted claims, a petition containing such claims must be 

dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3); Picard, 404 U.S. at 275. 

 Here, petitioner states that he pleaded no contest to the crime for which he was convicted 

and that he has not filed an appeal, or a petition, application or motion concerning the conviction 

in any court, citing “ignorance of habeas procedure.” ECF No. 1. It follows, therefore, that 

petitioner has not sought review of his claims in the California Supreme Court. Petitioner does 

not claim to have obtained from the respondent an express waiver of the exhaustion requirement. 

Thus, petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies, as the California Supreme Court has 

not yet had the opportunity to resolve petitioner’s constitutional claims on their merits. See 

Greene v. Lambert, 288 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2002). This action must therefore be 

summarily dismissed. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the February 5, 2015 findings and recommendations 

(ECF No. 5) are vacated. 

 2

 The court may raise the failure to exhaust issue sua sponte and may summarily dismiss 

on that ground. See Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 2:14-cv-02638-MCE-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/10/15 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 

27 

28 

3

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to exhaust state remedies; 

2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to serve a copy of any order adopting these findings 

and recommendations, together with a copy of the November 10, 2014 petition, on 

Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General for the State of California; 

and 

3. The Clerk be directed to close the case. 

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)(1). Within fourteen 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.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 

his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 

event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 

§ 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 

final order adverse to the applicant). 

Dated: March 9, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02638-MCE-EFB Document 7 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 3