Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01325/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01325-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Justin Gardner
Petitioner
State of California
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

JUSTIN GARDNER, No. CIV S-07-1325-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for

a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), filed on July 5, 2007.

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary

dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the

instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. In particular, the

exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court’s consideration of

claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509

(1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing

Case 2:07-cv-01325-MCE -CMK Document 4 Filed 10/01/07 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

2

the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting

them to the federal court. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971), Middleton v. Cupp,

768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). Upon review of the instant petition, the court concludes

that petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies as to any of his claims. Petitioner raises

two claims in the instant federal petition: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) possible

new evidence of actual innocence. Petitioner states in the petition that he did not file a direct

appeal of his conviction, that he has not filed any state court action raising his claims, and that no

such actions are currently pending. Therefore, it is clear that the state court has not been

presented with either of petitioner’s claims and, as such, they are not exhausted Moreover,

petitioner has not alleged that such remedies are no longer available. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition for

a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: October 1, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01325-MCE -CMK Document 4 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2