Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02098/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02098-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SKIPPY CHARLES RUTOWSKI,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2098 DFL GGH P

vs.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, 

Respondent. 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. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On November 1, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The magistrate judge recommended that this action be dismissed for petitioner’s

failure to exhaust state court remedies. In his objections, petitioner argues that he exhausted the

legal claims raised in this petition in a petition filed with the California Supreme Court

challenging a different conviction. However, to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, petitioner

Case 2:05-cv-02098-DFL-GGH Document 6 Filed 02/01/06 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

2

must first present all claims in the petition to the California Supreme Court as part of a challenge

to the conviction at issue in this habeas corpus petition. It does not suffice that petitioner has

raised some of the same arguments in other cases.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 1, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for

his failure to exhaust state court remedies.

DATED: 1/31/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02098-DFL-GGH Document 6 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2