Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02818/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02818-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Unknown
Respondent
Jorge Alejandro Vasquez
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE ALEJANDRO VASQUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

No. 2:24-cv-02818-SCR P

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel and filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner paid the filing fee.

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 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 petitioner has failed to 

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

2254(b)(2).

Case 2:24-cv-02818-TLN-SCR Document 5 Filed 11/25/24 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

exhaust state court remedies on all three grounds for relief. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner’s first ground 

for relief has not been presented to any state court. (Id. at 7.) Petitioner’s second ground for 

relief is pending before the California Court of Appeal. (Id. at 8.) Petitioner’s third ground for 

relief has not been presented to any state court. (Id. at 10.)

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. The Clerk of the Court assign a district judge to this case; and

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 

In addition, 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 21 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: November 22, 2024

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).

Case 2:24-cv-02818-TLN-SCR Document 5 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 2