Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02413/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02413-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodrick Harris
Petitioner
Sacramento 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODRICK HARRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-2413 TLN KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, presently housed in the Sacramento County Jail and 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 submitted a 

declaration that makes the showing required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in 

forma pauperis is 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 providing the 

 

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

§ 2254(b)(2).

Case 2:19-cv-02413-TLN-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/13/20 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

27

28

2

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 was convicted on October 15, 2019. People v. Rodrick 

Harris, No. 19FE018104 (Sacramento County Superior Court) (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Petitioner 

confirms that he did not file an appeal and did not check the box confirming that he has sought 

review in the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) The state appellate courts website 

reflects no filing by petitioner challenging the 2019 conviction in either the California Court of 

Appeal, Third Appellate District, or the California Supreme Court.2 Thus, petitioner’s claims in 

his federal petition 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 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 

////

 

2

 The court may take judicial notice of facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute

because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot

reasonably be questioned,” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), including undisputed information posted on

official websites. Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.

2010). It is appropriate to take judicial notice of the docket sheet of a California court. White v.

Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2010). The address of the official website of the California

state courts is www.courts.ca.gov.

3

 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 2:19-cv-02413-TLN-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/13/20 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

27

28

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 are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 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 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, 

he shall also address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to 

which issues. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(3). Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 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: January 13, 2020

/harr2413.103

Case 2:19-cv-02413-TLN-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 3