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

 This action is proceeding on the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus submitted

by petitioner on November 21, 2005. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO LARREN TAYLOR,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2123 GEB KJM P

vs.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY,

Respondent. ORDER AND

 / FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22541 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 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). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02123-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 05/09/06 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

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). 

2

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 with respect to all of his claims. 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.2

Petitioner has filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel. In light of the

foregoing, petitioner’s motion will be denied.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

2. Petitioner’s November 8, 2005 motion for the appointment of counsel is

denied; and

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. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's November 21, 2005

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

Case 2:04-cv-02123-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 05/09/06 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

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: May 9, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

tayl2123.103

Case 2:04-cv-02123-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 05/09/06 Page 3 of 3