(HC)Ibarrola v. District Court L. Karlton, No. 2:2007cv01526 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2007)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/13/07 ORDERING that the 2 petitioner's application to proceed IFP is DENIED; the Clerk is directed to serve a copy of these findings and recommendations and a copy of the petition on the Attorney General.It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Objections due within 20 days. (Manzer, C) Modified on 8/14/2007 (Donati, J).

Download PDF

(HC)Ibarrola v. District Court L. Karlton Doc. 4 Case 2:07-cv-01526-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ELEAZAR IBARROLA, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 No. CIV S-07-1526 GEB DAD P vs. DISTRICT COURT, et al., 14 ORDER AND Respondents. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Petitioner, an inmate at the Sacramento County Main Jail, has filed a petition for a 17 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma 18 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In the petition, petitioner contends that on July 12, 2007, 19 he entered a plea agreement in state court on advice from his attorney after his motion to 20 suppress evidence was denied. Petitioner contends that the plea agreement was reached without 21 full knowledge of his rights and under duress. He seeks to have the plea agreement rescinded 22 and his sentence withdrawn. 23 The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a 24 petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it 25 ///// 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-01526-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 2 of 3 1 must be waived explicitly by the respondent’s counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 A waiver 2 of exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred. 3 A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by fairly presenting to the 4 highest state court all federal claims before presenting them to the federal court. See Duncan v. 5 Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); 6 Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th 7 Cir. 1986). 8 9 After reviewing the present petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. The claims set forth in the petition have not 10 been presented to the California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court 11 remedies are no longer available to petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed 12 without prejudice.2 In light of these findings and recommendations, petitioner’s application for 13 leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied. 14 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied; and 16 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and 17 recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney 18 General of the State of California. 19 20 Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 21 22 23 1 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 2 24 25 26 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 2 Case 2:07-cv-01526-GEB-DAD 1 Document 4 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 3 of 3 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 2 District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 3 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file 4 written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings 5 and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 7 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 DATED: August 13, 2007. 9 10 11 12 DAD:4 ibar1526.103 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.