Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02291/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02291-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bureau of Prison Terms
Respondent
Phillip G. Stephens
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

PHILLIP G. STEPHENS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2291 FCD GGH P

vs.

BUREAU OF PRISON TERMS, ORDER &

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed a petition pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, wherein petitioner challenges “the BPT’s failure to set a release date ....” 

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder in 1977, and sentenced to a term of seven years to

life. Petition, p. 1.

On March 15, 2007, respondent filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground, inter

alia, that petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies, and setting the motion for

hearing on April 19, 2007. 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, thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

Case 2:06-cv-02291-FCD-GGH Document 13 Filed 04/10/07 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

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 1

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

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). 

On March 23, 2007, petitioner filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion

to dismiss on the ground that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies, conceding nonexhaustion. As petitioner has stipulated to this ground for dismissal, the court finds that the

claims raised herein have not been presented to the California Supreme Court and there is no

allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to petitioner. Pursuant to petitioner’s

non-opposition to dismissal on exhaustion grounds, the court does not find it necessary to reach

any other ground raised by respondent. The court will recommend dismissal of the petition as

unexhausted without prejudice and will vacate the hearing set for this motion. 1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the April 19, 2007, hearing on respondent’s

motion to dismiss is vacated from the court’s calendar.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s March 15, 2006, motion to 

dismiss, which petitioner expressly does not oppose, be granted on the ground that petitioner has

failed to exhaust state court remedies, and this petition be dismissed without prejudice.

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 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 Magistrate Judge’s 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

Case 2:06-cv-02291-FCD-GGH Document 13 Filed 04/10/07 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

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: 4/10/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

step2291.mtd

Case 2:06-cv-02291-FCD-GGH Document 13 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 3