Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01484/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01484-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roseanne Campbell
Respondent
Lawrence J. Dorsey
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE J. DORSEY, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1484 FCD KJM P

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 21, 2005, the court issued findings and

recommendations recommending that the action be dismissed because petitioner had not paid the

filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On November 3, 2005, petitioner filed objections, attaching as an exhibit a copy

of the receipt for the filing fee. Accordingly, the findings and recommendations of October 21,

2005 are vacated.

Petitioner argues that hearsay evidence was admitted against him in violation of

his Sixth Amendment rights as defined in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). It is not

clear from the pleadings however, whether petitioner has raised this issue in the state courts as

required. 

Case 2:05-cv-01484-FCD-KJM Document 7 Filed 12/05/05 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

1

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

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

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.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). Petitioner will be

given an opportunity to inform the court whether he has presented this issue to the California

Supreme Court.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations of October 21, 2005 are hereby vacated;

and

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall notify the court

whether he has exhausted state remedies on the issue presented in the instant petition. Failure to

comply with result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. 

DATED: December 5, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

dors1484.vfr

Case 2:05-cv-01484-FCD-KJM Document 7 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2