(HC) Griffin v. Price, No. 1:2021cv01516 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Unexhausted Petition Without Prejudice signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 2/14/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Lawrence, A)

Download PDF

(HC) Griffin v. Price Doc. 28 Case 1:21-cv-01516-ADA-CDB Document 28 Filed 02/15/23 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER LAWRENCE GRIFFIN, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:21-cv-01516-ADA-CDB Petitioner, v. BRANDON PRICE, Warden, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS UNEXHAUSTED PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 14) 16 17 18 Petitioner Dexter Lawrence Griffin (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with 19 a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). On October 25, 2021, the 20 assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed 21 for failure to exhaust state remedies. (ECF No. 10). On November 18, 2021, Petitioner filed a 22 response to the order to show cause, however, failed to indicate that he had presented his claim for 23 federal relief to the highest relevant state court. (ECF No. 12). This matter was referred to a United 24 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 On December 7, 2021, the assigned Magistrate Judge entered findings and 26 recommendations to dismiss the unexhausted petition without prejudice. (ECF No. 14). The 27 assigned Magistrate Judge held that Petitioner failed to indicate in his petition that he had presented 28 his claim for federal relief to the highest relevant state court. (Id. at 3.) In addition, the assigned 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-01516-ADA-CDB Document 28 Filed 02/15/23 Page 2 of 3 1 Magistrate Judge directed the Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to the case. (Id.) Those 2 findings and recommendations were served on Petitioner by mail and contained notice that any 3 objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id.) 4 On December 20, 2021, Petitioner timely filed objections to the assigned Magistrate Judge’s 5 findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 15). On January 4, 2022, Petitioner filed additional 6 objections, a motion to amend standing order of ongoing judicial emergency in Eastern District of 7 California, and requested the appointment of a guardian ad litem, class certification and 8 decertification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, motion to approve “minors 9 compromises” and a stay of the case to exhaust state remedies.1 (ECF No. 16). From January 31, 10 2022, through February 7, 2022, Petitioner filed additional objections and motions to compel 11 discovery and requests for sanctions and subpoenas.2 (ECF Nos. 20, 22-23). On February 28, 12 2022, Petitioner again filed objections to the assigned Magistrate Judge’s findings and 13 recommendations. (ECF No 24). 14 In his objections, which are difficult to decipher, Petitioner, at times, claims that he has 15 exhausted state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 15 at 11); (ECF No. 24 at 8). At other times, Petitioner 16 notes his habeas petition is not fully exhausted. (ECF No. 15 at 16); see also (ECF No. 16 at 2) 17 (Petitioner requests a dismissal and/or stay of the “federal proceedings to allow for exhaustion”). 18 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 19 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 20 including Petitioner’s objections, this Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 21 supported by the record and by proper analysis. Petitioner fails to persuade this Court that he has 22 sought relief in the highest relevant state court. Indeed, Petitioner admits his habeas petition was 23 not fully exhausted. The Court cannot consider a petition that is unexhausted. Rose v. Lundy, 455 24 U.S. 509, 521-22 (1982). 25 /// 26 /// 27 On January 14, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner’s motion and requests for relief. (ECF No. 19). 2 On June 29, 2022, the assigned judge denied Petitioner’s motions. (ECF No. 25). 1 28 2 Case 1:21-cv-01516-ADA-CDB Document 28 Filed 02/15/23 Page 3 of 3 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations entered on December 7, 2021 (ECF No. 14) are 3 4 adopted in full; 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is SUMMARILY DISMISSED 5 without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 14, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.