Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00577/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00577-1/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

 Pursuant to court order, petitioner filed an amended petition on May 9, 2005 and May

31, 2005. The court will consider his May 31, 2005 filing because it is complete. In his

amended petition filed May 31, 2005, petitioner names Derrel G. Adams as the respondent and

appears to delete the People of the State of California and Bill Lockyer. 

2

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

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY TERRELL McNEAL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0577 MCE CMK

vs.

DERREL G. ADAMS, et al.,1

Respondents. ORDER AND

 / FINDINGS & 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. On May 9, 2005, the court granted the petitioner

thirty days to file an amended petition. On May 31, 2005, petitioner filed the relevant amended

petition.

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).2 A waiver of exhaustion,

Case 2:05-cv-00577-MCE -CMK Document 12 Filed 07/18/05 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

3

 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). 

2

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.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

After reviewing the amended 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.3

Petitioner has also requested that this federal case be stayed until he completes

any filing he may have in state court. Petitioner’s basis for this request is an ambiguous assertion

of newly discovered evidence. See Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1532-33 (2005). The court

will deny his request for stay because his federal petition was not exhausted. 

The respondents filed a request to modify the scheduling order to afford them

thirty additional days in which to file an answer. The court will deny respondents’ request as

moot.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request to stay his case filed June 3, 2005, is denied without

prejudice;

2. Respondents’ request to modify the scheduling order is denied as moot; and 

3. 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 

Case 2:05-cv-00577-MCE -CMK Document 12 Filed 07/18/05 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

3

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

twenty 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 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: July 15, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00577-MCE -CMK Document 12 Filed 07/18/05 Page 3 of 3