Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00119-0/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

DWAIN D. MOORE, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0119 GEB GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 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 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 petition identifies five grounds for relief: 1) conviction obtained pursuant to

an unconstitutional search and seizure; 2) ineffective assistance of counsel; 3) sentence violates

the Eighth Amendment; 4) jury instruction error; and 5) the trial court improperly denied

petitioner’s motion for a new trial. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00119-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 02/15/06 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

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 1

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

2

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 respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion,

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

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, 92 S. Ct. 509, 512

(1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

The United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not

entertain a petition for habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with

respect to each of the claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S. Ct. 1198 (1982). A

mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed.

According to the petition, only the first four claims were presented to the

California Supreme Court. If this is true, then petitioner has the following options: 1) petitioner

may voluntarily dismiss this action so that he may return to state court and exhaust his

unexhausted claims ; 2) petitioner may voluntarily dismiss his unexhausted claim and proceed 1

only with his four exhausted claims; or 3) petitioner may file further briefing requesting that this

action be stayed pending his return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claim; in this

briefing, petitioner must show good cause for his failure to previously exhaust this claim. See

Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall review the options

Case 2:06-cv-00119-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 02/15/06 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

set forth above and inform the court how he wishes to proceed. Failure to respond to this order

will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.

DATED: 2/14/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

moor0119.101a

 

Case 2:06-cv-00119-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 02/15/06 Page 3 of 3