Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01882/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01882-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES DAVID FISCHER,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Respondents.

No. 2: 16-cv-1882 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

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 a request to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner submitted a declaration that makes the showing required 

by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 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 respondent’s 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 providing the 

highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to 

 

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

2254(b)(2).

Case 2:16-cv-01882-MCE-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/28/16 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

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). 

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has failed to 

exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been presented to the California Supreme 

Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to 

petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.2

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. Because the undersigned 

recommends that this action be dismissed, the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and 

recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney 

General of the State of California;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action; 

4. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas 

corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 

////

////

////

 

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 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 2:16-cv-01882-MCE-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/28/16 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

Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: October 27, 2016

Fisc1882.103

Case 2:16-cv-01882-MCE-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/28/16 Page 3 of 3