Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01400/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01400-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
District Attorney
Respondent
Robert Anthony Taylor
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 

ROBERT ANTHONY TAYLOR, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:24-cv-01400 SCR P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action with an unsigned 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Subsequently, 

petitioner filed a signed petition and a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) 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 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 2:24-cv-01400-DJC-SCR Document 8 Filed 10/15/24 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’s direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal is still 

pending, and the claims in the petition have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. 

(ECF No. 7 at 2.) 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’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted; 

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

3. 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. 

 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 

//// 

//// 

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-01400-DJC-SCR Document 8 Filed 10/15/24 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 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: October 15, 2024 

 

Case 2:24-cv-01400-DJC-SCR Document 8 Filed 10/15/24 Page 3 of 3