Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01395/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01395-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

AUDREY KING, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:12-cv-01395-AWI-JLT HC 

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL RESPONSE

FROM PETITIONER

Petitioner is confined at the Coalinga State Hospital proceeding pro se with a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his pre-conviction detention. 

On November 21, 2012, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

Recommendation ("F&R") recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED

due to lack of exhaustion. (Doc. 15). The F&R was served on all parties and contained notice that

any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. 

On December 4, 2012, Petitioner filed objections to the F&R. (Doc. 16). In relevant part,

Petitioner argues that he has exhausted his administrative remedies because the California Supreme

Court summarily denied his petition. See id. Petitioner identifies the denied petition as bearing

California Supreme Court Case No. S202833. See id. 

As part of his objections, and as part of his petition, Petitioner submitted state court

documents. Included were documents relating to two petitions in the California Supreme Court. In

Case No. S202833, the California Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Fifth District Court of

1

Case 1:12-cv-01395-AWI-JLT Document 19 Filed 02/26/13 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

27

28

Appeal. On June 7, 2012, the Fifth District Court of Appeal denied the petition. On June 27, 2012,

Petitioner filed another petition in the California Supreme Court, Case No. S203603. Case No.

S203603 was denied in one sentence by the California Supreme Court on July 18, 2012. 

In light of the above, the Court is concerned whether there has been adequate exhaustion. 

The California Supreme Court case number that Petitioner relies on, No. S202833, is not a denial

and does not show exhaustion. Case No. S203603, however, is a denial. Unfortunately, the Court

cannot tell whether Case No. S203603 is related to the claims that Petitioner makes in the case at bar. 

The Court will give Petitioner one more opportunity to show exhaustion before deciding whether to

adopt the Findings and Recommendation.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than March 14, 2013, Petitioner shall

submit additional evidence on the issue of whether he has exhausted his state remedies, and in

particular the nature of Petitioner's California Supreme Court Case No. S203603.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 25, 2013 

0m8i78 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-01395-AWI-JLT Document 19 Filed 02/26/13 Page 2 of 2