Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01240/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01240-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Ross Beam
Petitioner
S. Frauenheim
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

KEVIN ROSS BEAM,

Petitioner,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-1240 MCE KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

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. He has now submitted a request to proceed in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, including 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 

highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to 

 

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

§ 2254(b)(2).

Case 2:16-cv-01240-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 07/05/16 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

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.2 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 

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 

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 fourteen 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

 In his petition, petitioner states that he “appeals the summary denial of” the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus issued by the Placer County Superior Court on May 10, 2016. (ECF No. 1 at 1.)

3

 Petitioner is cautioned that a one year statute of limitations is applicable to all claims presented 

in a federal habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); see also Mardesich v. Cate, 668 

F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that the one year statute of limitations applied to each claim in 

a habeas petition on an individual basis). 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 2:16-cv-01240-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 07/05/16 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: July 5, 2016

/beam1240.103

Case 2:16-cv-01240-MCE-KJN Document 9 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 3