Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01163/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01163-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC JOHNSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JUDGE LYNN ATKINSON, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-CV-01163 LJO NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #5]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 31, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state remedies. The Magistrate

Judge further recommended that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings

and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On September 26, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Petitioner argues he has fulfilled the exhaustion requirement by merely presenting his claims to the

Case 1:07-cv-01163-LJO-LJO Document 7 Filed 10/03/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

California Supreme Court. Petitioner is mistaken. It is not sufficient that he merely present his claims

to the California Supreme Court. In order to provide the California Supreme Court a full and fair

“opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of the prisoner[’s] federal rights,” it goes

without saying that the Supreme Court must be allowed to rule on said claims. Picard v. Connor, 404

U.S. 270, 275 (1971).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 31, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01163-LJO-LJO Document 7 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 2