Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01961/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01961-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Earnest Bernard Ivy
Petitioner
San Joaquin County Superior 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

 This case was transferred from the Northern District and filed in this court on September 1

1, 2006.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST BERNARD IVY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1961 GEB GGH P

vs.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 

SUPERIOR COURT, 

 

Respondent. ORDER

 / FINDINGS & 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, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.1

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01961-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 09/20/06 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 2

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 3

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 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). A waiver of exhaustion, 2

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 challenges his 2005 conviction after a bench trial for being a

felon/addict in possession of a firearm for which he was sentenced to a two-year term with half

time credits and a parole term of three years. The grounds he raises are: 1) ineffective assistance

of counsel; 2) denial of due process by not being allowed a reduced bail or release on his own

recognizance; 3) judicial bias. After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds

that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. The 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.

3

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and

recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney

General of the State of California; and 

Case 2:06-cv-01961-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 09/20/06 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

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

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: 9/19/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009 

ivy1961.103

Case 2:06-cv-01961-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 09/20/06 Page 3 of 3