Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00111/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00111-0/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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LEROY TILLMAN, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0111 MCE KJM P

vs.

THOMAS L. CAREY, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

be waived explicitly by respondents’ counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 A waiver of exhaustion,

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

Case 2:07-cv-00111-MCE -KJM Document 5 Filed 05/02/07 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

2

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of

limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one

2

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). 

The state court has had an opportunity to rule on the merits when the petitioner

has fairly presented the claim to that court. The fair presentation requirement is met where the

petitioner has described the operative facts and legal theory on which his claim is based. Picard,

404 U.S. at 277-78. Generally, it is “not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal

claim were before the state courts . . . or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made.” 

Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). Instead, 

[i]f state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged

violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted

to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United

States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an

evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so,

not only in federal court, but in state court.

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). Accordingly, “a claim for relief in habeas corpus

must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the

facts which entitle the petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 116 S. Ct. 2074,

2081 (1996). 

After reviewing the record in this action, the court finds that petitioner has failed

to exhaust state court remedies with respect to those claims identified as claims three and four in

his petition. Accordingly, the petition is a mixed petition containing both exhausted and

unexhausted claims. 

Petitioner has two options. Within thirty days: (1) petitioner may file an

amended habeas application omitting all claims for which petitioner has failed to exhaust state

court remedies;2

 or (2) file a request to stay this action pending exhaustion of state court

Case 2:07-cv-00111-MCE -KJM Document 5 Filed 05/02/07 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

year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the

statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other

collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner is advised a portion of the

limitation period in his case appears to have already elapsed. 

3

remedies with respect to the unexhausted claims. Petitioner is informed that to be entitled to a

stay, he must show good cause for his failure to exhaust earlier, and that the unexhausted claims

are potentially meritorious. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). 

Petitioner’s failure to comply with one of these alternatives within thirty days will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

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

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days within which to inform the court how he

wishes to proceed with this matter by choosing one of the alternatives described above. If

petitioner fails to so inform the court within thirty days, the court will recommend that this

action be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: May 1, 2007. 

1

till0111.103(1.17.07)

Case 2:07-cv-00111-MCE -KJM Document 5 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 3