Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03425/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03425-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duane W. James
Petitioner
State of California Parole Board
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUANE W. JAMES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-3425 EFB P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA PAROLE 

BOARD,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs

of suit. Therefore, the request is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

A judge “entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the

writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. It appears on the face of the petition that petitioner has failed to

exhaust state court remedies as to his challenge to the sentence imposed upon him in January of

2010 by the Sacramento County Superior Court, for possession of cocaine. 

Case 2:10-cv-03425-EFB Document 5 Filed 01/05/11 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

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. Exhaustion of state remedies requires that petitioners fairly present

federal claims to the highest state court, either on direct appeal or through state collateral

proceedings, in order to give the highest state court “the opportunity to pass upon and correct

alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995)

(some internal quotations omitted). 

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

exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner concedes that he has not sought review of his conviction

by any other court. Pet. at 3-4. Petitioner states that he did not seek review by any other court

because his lawyer “did not respond to appeal requests,” and petitioner “did not know how to

appeal [his] sentence.” Id. at 7. Petitioner claims further that he was “not aware that [he] was

allowed to exhaust state remedies, [and] did not understand this process.” Id. at 8. Thus, it

appears that petitioner’s claims have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. 

Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to petitioner. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

////

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:10-cv-03425-EFB Document 5 Filed 01/05/11 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

3

2. Petitioner shall, within 30 days of the date this order is served, demonstrate that he has

presented his claims to the California Supreme Court or that state remedies are no longer

available. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result in a dismissal upon the

ground that petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies. 

Dated: January 5, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-03425-EFB Document 5 Filed 01/05/11 Page 3 of 3