Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02197/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02197-3/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 one section of the petition, petitioner states that he is challenging a February 4, 2004

conviction by the Solano County Superior Court. Pet., Dckt. No. 1, at 2. In another section,

petitioner indicates that he is challenging a rules violation report disciplinary hearing and not a

conviction. Id. at 6. It appears that petitioner intends to challenge the result of a prison

disciplinary hearing, as the substance of his only ground for relief relates to the loss of credits

imposed as a result of being found guilty of possession of a weapon, as documented in a June 3,

2003 rules violation report. Id. at 5.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON YONAI,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-2197 GEB EFB P

vs.

WALKER, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a loss of credits imposed at a prison

disciplinary hearing based on a rules violation report dated June 3, 2003.1

 See Pet. at 5. 

Respondent moves to dismiss on the grounds that petitioner has failed to exhaust his state

judicial remedies and that the petition is untimely. The court finds that the petition is

unexhausted and must therefore be dismissed.

Case 2:07-cv-02197-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 02/03/10 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

2

 See Case No. CIV-S-06-2784 LKK KJM, Docket No. 1 at unnumbered page 8. See

also Case No. CIV-S-06-1250 JKS CMK, Docket No. 6 at unnumbered pages 26-27. A court

2

A district court may not grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless the petitioner

has exhausted available state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A state will not be

deemed to have waived the exhaustion requirement unless the state, through counsel, expressly

waives the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). Exhaustion of state remedies requires that

petitioners fairly present federal claims to the highest state court, either on direct appeal or

through state collateral proceedings, in order to give the highest state court “the opportunity to

pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Duncan v. Henry, 513

U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (some internal quotations omitted).

In his petition, petitioner lists three California Supreme Court cases, suggesting that he

somehow in those cases has exhausted the claims in issue here. Pet. at 4. Respondent includes

in his motion to dismiss the petitions filed in each of those cases. Resp.’s Mot. to Dism.

(“Mot.”), Exs. 1-3. The first petition, filed in case number S143120, was not filed by petitioner,

and therefore, could not have exhausted petitioner’s claim. See id., Ex. 1. The second petition,

filed in case number S143170, was filed by petitioner, but challenges various criminal

proceedings in the Solano County Superior Court. Id., Ex. 2. The third petition, filed in case

number S147610, appears to challenge the same superior court proceedings. Id., Ex. 3. None of

these petitions included the claim now at issue. Thus, they do not demonstrate in any way that

petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies as to the claims asserted here.

In his opposition brief, petitioner states that he “think[s] [he] also exhausted [his] grounds

for relief to the highest level in Supreme Court Case No. S143704 . . . .” Pet’r’s Opp’n to Mot.

(“Opp’n”) at 1. That petition was denied by order filed July 12, 2006. In re Jason David Yonai,

2006 Cal. LEXIS 8620. Although petitioner did not file a copy of the petition for review with

his opposition brief, he previously filed a copy of that petition in another action he filed in this

court.2

 That petition makes no reference to the disciplinary action petitioner now challenges. In

Case 2:07-cv-02197-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 02/03/10 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

may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505

(9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

3

 Petitioner states that his mental health status made it hard for him to exhaust his state

remedies. Opp’n at 1, Ex. A. The court is not aware of any authority that would excuse

petitioner from the exhaustion requirement in the absence of an express waiver by respondent.

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

While petitioner’s mental health could be relevant to whether he would be entitled to equitable

tolling of the statute of limitations, the court need not address that issue since it declines to reach

the timeliness question.

3

order to properly exhaust his state court remedies, petitioner must file a habeas corpus petition in

the California Supreme Court challenging the prison disciplinary conviction on the ground raised

in the instant petition.

Accordingly, the court finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies and

respondent’s motion to dismiss must be granted on this ground. Because the claim is not

exhausted, the court need not reach the issue of whether the claim is barred by the statute of

limitations.3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s August 26, 2009, motion to dismiss be granted on ground that the claim

raised in this action is not exhausted; and

2. The Clerk be directed to close the case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In

his objections, he may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he

files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254

Case 2:07-cv-02197-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 02/03/10 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

4

Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final

order adverse to the applicant). 

Dated: February 3, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-02197-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 02/03/10 Page 4 of 4