Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01009/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01009-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas L. Carey
Respondent
Michael Robert Seabrooks
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

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

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ROBERT SEABROOKS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1009 LKK GGH P

vs.

THOMAS L. CAREY, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER AND

 / 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 a request to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing

required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

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 not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

Case 2:05-cv-01009-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 08/10/05 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

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). 

2

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, 92 S. Ct. 509, 512

(1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), 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 states that on February 14, 2005, he asked the

California Supreme Court for an extension of time to file his petition for review. Attached as an

exhibit to the petition is a letter to petitioner from the California Supreme Court stating that his

request could not be considered due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner did not file a habeas corpus

petition in state court. Although there may be grounds for procedural default if a habeas corpus

petition is filed in state court, this court will not presumptively find such a bar.

While petitioner faults his attorney on appeal for failing to file a timely petition

for review, his claims have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. 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.2

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

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 

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

habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

Case 2:05-cv-01009-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 08/10/05 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: 8/10/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

sea1009.ord

Case 2:05-cv-01009-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 08/10/05 Page 3 of 3