Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01500-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HENRY TESSMER, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVE SMITH, Acting Warden,

1

Respondent.

No. 2:24-cv-1500 CSK P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2022 murder conviction. As discussed 

below, the petition is dismissed with leave to amend. 

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).2

 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 

1

 Steve Smith, Acting Warden of Pleasant Valley State Prison, is substituted as respondent. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 25(d); see Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).

2

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

§ 2254(b)(2). 

Case 2:24-cv-01500-CSK Document 4 Filed 06/03/24 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

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. 1985), 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, 162-63 (1996). 

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 (1982). A mixed petition containing both exhausted 

and unexhausted claims must be dismissed.

Petitioner raises four claims in his petition: (1) There is no evidence of prior planning 

activity; (2) There is some evidence of motive; petitioner was provoked when the victim took a 

swing at petitioner; (3) There is no evidence of a particular and exact means and manner of killing 

indicating a preconceived design; and (4) Ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 1.)

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

state court remedies as to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, the petition is 

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

Good cause appearing, petitioner will be granted thirty days to file an amended petition raising 

////

Case 2:24-cv-01500-CSK Document 4 Filed 06/03/24 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

only exhausted claims.3

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

1. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended petition 

raising only exhausted claims. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

Dated: June 3, 2024

/1/tess1500.103mix

3 Petitioner is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed on an amended petition raising only 

exhausted claims, he will risk forfeiting consideration of the unexhausted claims in this or any 

other federal court. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991); see also Rose, 455 U.S. at 520-

21; Rule 9(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Petitioner is further 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 

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).

Case 2:24-cv-01500-CSK Document 4 Filed 06/03/24 Page 3 of 3