Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00398/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00398-0/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

HARRY LLOYD HOWARD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0398 FCD CMK P

vs.

TOM CAREY, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. 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. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

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). 

A review of the petition for habeas corpus reveals that petitioner has failed to

exhaust his state court remedies; in the next box the question asking whether petitioner had filed

anything other than a direct appeal in this matter, petitioner checked “no.” 

Case 2:06-cv-00398-FCD-CMK Document 3 Filed 03/07/06 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

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 him. 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, any party 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.” Any reply to the objections shall be

served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 7, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00398-FCD-CMK Document 3 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 2