Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02506/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02506-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Cramer
Petitioner
People of the 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CRAMER,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-2506 CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his November 2014 conviction in the Placer County Superior 

Court for violating Cal. Penal Code § 242, for which he received a sentence of 30 days. (ECF 

No. 1 at 1.) Petitioner has paid the filing fee for this action.

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). 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. Petitioner filed his claims in the California Supreme Court on 

Case 2:15-cv-02506-CKD Document 4 Filed 12/09/15 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

December 1, 2015 and filed the instant federal action the next day. (ECF No. 1 at 4-5.) There is 

no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to petitioner. Thus, the petition 

should be dismissed without prejudice to renewal when state remedies are exhausted – i.e., when 

the state supreme court issues a decision on petitioner’s claims.1 Petitioner has consented to 

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all proceedings in this action. (ECF No. 3.) 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to exhaust state remedies; and 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order together with a copy of 

the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney General of the State of California.

Dated: December 9, 2015

2 / cram2506.103

 

1

 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).

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02506-CKD Document 4 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 2