Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02013/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02013-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERROD HERNDON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-2013 TLN KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner submitted a declaration that makes the showing required 

by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a).

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).1 A waiver of exhaustion, 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 

 

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

§ 2254(b)(2).

Case 2:15-cv-02013-TLN-KJN Document 7 Filed 11/25/15 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

27

28

2

the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 

1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has failed to 

exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner states he was sentenced on June 18, 2015. (ECF No. 1 at 

2.) The claims have not been presented to the California Supreme Court.2 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 also mentions a desire to change his plea. Petitioner is advised that he may not 

seek to change his plea through a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Petitioner 

should consult with his defense counsel, or seek relief in the Sacramento County Superior Court.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

2. 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 

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

 

2

 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court has reviewed, and takes 

judicial notice of, the electronic dockets for the California Court of Appeal and the California 

Supreme Court. California Courts, < http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov>, visited November 

18, 2015. Those judicially-noticed records show that petitioner has not filed any proceeding in 

the California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme. Thus, the court has confirmed that 

petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies as to the 2015 conviction. 

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).

Case 2:15-cv-02013-TLN-KJN Document 7 Filed 11/25/15 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

27

28

3

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: November 24, 2015

/hern2013.103

Case 2:15-cv-02013-TLN-KJN Document 7 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 3