Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00867/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00867-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Bowen
Petitioner
Schultz
Respondent

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY BOWEN,

Petitioner,

v.

SCHULTZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00867-EPG-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Jerry Bowen is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As the petition is unexhausted, the undersigned

recommends dismissal of the petition without prejudice.

I.

BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 

1.) On August 12, 2024, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not 

be dismissed as unexhausted. (ECF No. 4.) To date, no response to the order to show cause has 

been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.

II.

DISCUSSION

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”) require preliminary review 

of a habeas petition and allow a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is 

Case 1:24-cv-00867-JLT-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/05/24 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

ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based 

on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s 

alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. 

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 

presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971).

In Petitioner’s sole claim for relief, Petitioner appears to assert that his gun and gang 

sentencing enhancements should be vacated based on California Senate Bill 620 and People v. 

Tirado, 12 Cal.5th 688, 695 (2022). (ECF No. 1 at 5.1) The petition states that Petitioner did not 

appeal his judgment of conviction, did not seek further review by a higher state court, and did 

not previously file any other petitions, applications, or motions concerning the judgment of 

conviction in any state court. (Id. at 2, 3.) It is possible that Petitioner has presented his claim to 

the California Supreme Court and failed to indicate this to the Court. However, as Petitioner has 

not responded to the order to show cause, it appears that Petitioner failed to exhaust his claim in 

the petition. If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court for the claim that 

he raises in the instant petition, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of that claim. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(1).

III.

RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state court 

remedies.

1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:24-cv-00867-JLT-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/05/24 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

Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 

the present matter.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 

written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and 

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will 

then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are 

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

District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00867-JLT-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/05/24 Page 3 of 3