Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00318/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00318-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Plaintiff filed this action on a form used for filing a civil rights complaint; however, he 1

stated that he sought relief under habeas corpus (“I would like to have charges dismissed under

habeas corpus). By order filed February 28, 2007, the court granted plaintiff thirty days to clarify

the nature of his action. The court stated that should plaintiff fail to provide clarification, the court

would assume that plaintiff sought habeas relief. (Doc. 5). To date, plaintiff has not provided

clarification. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY GRAFF,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0318 MCE CMK P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Respondents. 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, together with a request to proceed in forma 1

pauperis.

Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this

action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court's

consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can satisfy 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). 

Case 2:07-cv-00318-MCE -CMK Document 6 Filed 04/18/07 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

2

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. There is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to him. 

Further, the court is barred from intervening in this matter by the Younger doctrine. Federal

courts cannot interfere with pending state criminal proceedings, absent extraordinary

circumstances which create a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46

(1971). Irreparable injury does not exist in such situations if the threat to plaintiff's federally

protected rights may be eliminated by his defense of the criminal case. Moreover, "even

irreparable injury is insufficient [to permit interference with the proceeding] unless it is `both

great and immediate.'" Id. at 46 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)).

 Accordingly, 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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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).

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

DATED: April 17, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00318-MCE -CMK Document 6 Filed 04/18/07 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

Case 2:07-cv-00318-MCE -CMK Document 6 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 3