Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01719/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01719-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kern State Prison
Respondent
Robert Anthony Taylor
Petitioner

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT ANTHONY TAYLOR, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

KERN STATE PRISON, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:24-cv-1719 TLN SCR P 

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

AND 

AMENDED FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. (ECF No. 1.) On September 3, 2024, the court ordered petitioner to submit, within thirty 

days, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing 

fee. (ECF No. 5.) The time granted for that purpose expired, and on October 28, 2024, the 

undersigned recommended this action be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner 

filed objections to the findings and recommendations indicating he “filled out a fee waiver” 

which “the Clerk did not receive[.]” (ECF No. 7.) Based on petitioner’s objections, the 

undersigned vacates the prior findings and recommendations and issues these amended findings 

and recommendations to dismiss. 

I. In Forma Pauperis 

As set forth below, it clearly appears the petition is unexhausted. Because the petition 

must be dismissed, there is no need for petitioner to re-submit an affidavit in support of his 

Case 2:24-cv-01719-TLN-SCR Document 8 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 4
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 

request to proceed in forma pauperis. See Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 

(9th Cir. 1987) (a district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it 

appears from the face of the proposed pleading that the action is frivolous or without merit).

II. Screening Standard 

In screening the habeas petition, the court applies the Rule 4 framework of the Rules 

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

Rule 4. If it plainly appears from the petition, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior 

proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, then the petition must be dismissed. Id.; 

Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). 

III. Discussion 

Petitioner challenges his January 2024 conviction which is on appeal to the California 

Court of Appeal. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner asserts two grounds for relief: (1) the so-called victim 

did not submit to a sobriety test, did not follow California bicycle laws, and did not show up for 

trial, and (2) plaintiff was ripped off at the canteen at North Kern State Prison. (Id. at 1-2.) 

A. Ground One is Unexhausted 

To the extent petitioner requests relief that can be granted through a writ of habeas corpus, 

the petition is unexhausted, and must be dismissed. 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 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). 

 Petitioner’s direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal is pending, and the claims in 

the petition have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. (See ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) 

1

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

2254(b)(2). 

Case 2:24-cv-01719-TLN-SCR Document 8 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 4
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 

There is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to petitioner. Accordingly, 

the petition should be dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted. 

B. Ground Two is Not Cognizable 

Petitioner’s claim that he was ripped off at canteen is not cognizable on habeas corpus and 

such a claim may be brought, if at all, only under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 

1151, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2011); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). However, 

plaintiff cannot state a claim under § 1983 based on deprivation of property in the manner alleged 

because California state law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Zimmerman v. 

City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2001); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Accordingly, the undersigned will not recommend the court convert 

ground two of the present petition to a civil rights action. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 

936 (9th Cir. 2016) (a district court may construe a petition for habeas corpus to plead a cause of 

action under § 1983 after notifying and obtaining informed consent from the prisoner). Doing so 

would subject petitioner to filing fee requirements, sua sponte review of the complaint by the 

court, and limits on the number of actions a prisoner may be permitted to file in forma pauperis. 

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 & 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. 

IV. Conclusion, Order, and Recommendation 

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, it clearly appears petitioner failed to 

exhaust state court remedies as to ground one. Ground two is not cognizable in a habeas action. 

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that the findings and recommendations 

filed on October 28, 2024 (ECF No. 6) are VACATED. 

 As amended findings and recommendations, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without leave to amend because 

ground one is unexhausted and ground two is not cognizable. 

2. The court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 

 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 

 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 21 days after 

Case 2:24-cv-01719-TLN-SCR Document 8 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 4
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 

4 

being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 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: December 11, 2024 

 

Case 2:24-cv-01719-TLN-SCR Document 8 Filed 12/11/24 Page 4 of 4