Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01434/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01434-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Appeals Coordinator
Respondent
Darren Kent Coleman
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

DARREN KENT COLEMAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1434 LKK GGH P

vs.

CSP-S APPEALS COORDINATOR’S,

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner at CSP - Solano, has filed a state “petition for writ of

habeas corpus,” seeking “emergency relief,” and alleging that he was found guilty of a CDC 115

“prematurely.” Petitioner provides no date for the prison disciplinary action at issue, but asserts

that he discovered, on June 1, 2006, that “a modification order should have been...a dismissal.” 

He also alleges that he has an upcoming release date of June 24, 2006. This petition was not

filed in this court until June 28, 2006. 

On the face of it, petitioner has not clearly set forth appropriate grounds for relief 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Assuming petitioner intended to challenge the finding of guilt

with respect to an unidentified prison disciplinary action, he has by no means demonstrated

exhaustion of state court remedies. Petitioner has also failed to either pay the required filing fee

$5.00 or file an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1914(a), 1915(a).

Case 2:06-cv-01434-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 07/28/06 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

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

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

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

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). 

2

The court will recommend dismissal of this action for failure to demonstrate

exhaustion of state court 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). A1

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’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, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice. 

2

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

habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01434-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 07/28/06 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

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

twenty 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: 7/28/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

cole1434.fte

Case 2:06-cv-01434-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 07/28/06 Page 3 of 3