Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01516/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01516-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Prison Terms
Respondent
Curtis Ray Calloway
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

Curtis Ray Calloway

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1516 FCD CMK P

vs.

Board of Prison Terms

Respondents. 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.

Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this

action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court's

consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can satisfy 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). 

Case 2:05-cv-01516-FCD-CMK Document 8 Filed 12/13/05 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

"A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or 1

her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th

Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). In the instant action, petitioner has named the

Board of Prison Terms as respondents. This entity is not the proper respondents in this action.

Petitioner is cautioned that should he return to this court after exhaustion, he should name the proper

respondent. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the petition with leave to amend. See

Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.

2

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 him. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a writ

of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

1

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, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be

served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: December 9, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01516-FCD-CMK Document 8 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2