Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00010/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00010-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Prison Terms
Respondent
California Department of Corrections
Respondent
Paul Evans
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

“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him

or her as the respondent to the petition. This person typically is the warden of the facility in which

the petitioner is incarcerated. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.1992).”

Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254). Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of

personal jurisdiction. Id.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989). In the instant action,

petitioner appears to have named either or both the California Department of Corrections and/or the

Board of Prison Terms as respondent. These entities are not the proper respondent in this action.

Petitioner is cautioned that should he return to this court after exhaustion, he should name the proper

respondent. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the petition with leave to amend. See

Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL EVANS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0010 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,1

et al., 

Respondent. ORDER and FINDINGS & 

 / RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has purported to file an application

for a writ of writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Although petitioner asserts that

he should not be subjected to an administrative exhaustion requirement, the petitioner’s claim

Case 2:06-cv-00010-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 02/09/06 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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 2

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 3

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

concerning not being granted half-time credits against his current eight-month sentence prior to

entering a rehabilitation program has not been exhausted with respect to state court remedies. 

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, 2

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.), 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. 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

In addition, petitioner has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the

required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Based upon the court’s

recommendation for dismissal, petitioner will not be required at this time to submit the

appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing

fee.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the

Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and recommendations together with a copy of

Case 2:06-cv-00010-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 02/09/06 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

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

twenty 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: 2/8/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/bb

evan0010.103+

Case 2:06-cv-00010-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 02/09/06 Page 3 of 3