Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00006-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cory M. Crain
Petitioner
United States District Court
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORY M. CRAIN,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

Respondent.

No. 2:20-cv-00006 GGH P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis 

affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Petitioner has 

filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3.

The undersigned will deny the motion for an extension of time as moot given the following 

recommendations that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state 

remedies. 

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 

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

2254(b)(2).

Case 2:20-cv-00006-TLN-GGH Document 6 Filed 01/24/20 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

27

28

2

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). 

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

exhaust state court remedies. In his habeas petition, petitioner requests as his single ground for 

relief: resentencing pursuant to California Senate Bill 136. ECF No. 1 at 3. This claim has not 

been presented to the California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court 

remedies are no longer available to petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed 

without prejudice.2

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner motion for extension of time (ECF No. 3) is denied as moot; and

2. The Clerk of the Court assign a district judge to this action.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas 

corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

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 fourteen days 

after 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: January 24, 2020

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 2 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations 

for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one-year period will start 

to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the 

expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is tolled while a properly 

filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Case 2:20-cv-00006-TLN-GGH Document 6 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 2