Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00596/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00596-0/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

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are “applicable to habeas corpus proceedings to 1

the extent that the practice in such proceedings are not set forth in the statutes of the United

States and has heretofore conformed to the practice of civil actions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(2). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID W. JACOBSON )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

WARDEN, McFARLAND CCF, et al., )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:07-cv-0596 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. The Court has

conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and has determined

1

Case 1:07-cv-00596-AWI-WMW Document 6 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Rule 11 also provides “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not

inconsistent with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to the petitions filed under these

rules.” Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

2

that it must be dismissed.

 A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his

conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives

the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. 

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state

court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal

court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88

F.3d 828, 829 (9 Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given

th

a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state

court with the claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct.

887, 888 (1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719

(1992) (factual basis). Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court

that he was raising a federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at

888; Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner

th

wishes to claim that the trial court violated his due process rights “he must say so, not only in

federal court but in state court.” Duncan, 513 U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888. A general

appeal to a constitutional guarantee is insufficient to present the "substance" of such a

federal claim to a state court. See, Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7, 103 S.Ct. 276 (1982)

(Exhaustion requirement not satisfied circumstance that the "due process ramifications" of an

argument might be "self-evident."); Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63, 116 S.Ct.

Case 1:07-cv-00596-AWI-WMW Document 6 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 4
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

1074 (1996) (“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.”).

In this case, Petitioner seeks to challenge his parole revocation. However, it appears

from the petition that the only grounds for relief Petitioner has presented to the California

Supreme Court are related to his original conviction. It does not appear that the claims

related to his parole revocation have ever been presented to the California Supreme Court

and they therefore appear to be unexhausted. The court must dismiss a petition that contains

only unexhausted claims. Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22, 102 S.Ct. at 1205; Calderon v. United

States Dist. Court (Gordon), 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9 Cir. 1997) (en banc) cert. denied, 118 th

S.Ct. 265 (1997); Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9 Cir.1988). th

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition for writ of habeas

corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 1:07-cv-00596-AWI-WMW Document 6 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 4
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 4

Dated: June 6, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00596-AWI-WMW Document 6 Filed 06/07/07 Page 4 of 4