Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02470/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02470-0/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

MAHKUSAH IMMANUEL TANKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondents.

No. 2: 16-cv-2470 KJN P

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 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).

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (ECF No. 6.)

Petitioner requests that his sentence be reduced pursuant to Proposition 47 and California 

Penal Code § 1170.18. Proposition 47, enacted in November 2014, “makes certain drug – and 

theft – related offenses misdemeanors, unless they were committed by certain ineligible 

defendants.” People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089 (2015).

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 

Case 2:16-cv-02470-KJN Document 9 Filed 12/12/16 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

2

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 

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

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; and 

3. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust 

state remedies. 

Dated: December 12, 2016

Tank2470.103

 

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

2254(b)(2). 

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-02470-KJN Document 9 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 2