(HC) Campbell v. Smiley, No. 2:2005cv02016 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2005)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Craig M. Kellison on 10/19/05 recommending that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Tony Campbell, be dismissed. Parties to file written objections w/in 20 days. Replies to objections are to be served and filed w/in 10 days after service of the objections. (Brown, T)

Download PDF
(HC) Campbell v. Smiley Doc. 5 Case 2:05-cv-02016-LKK-CMK Document 5 Filed 10/21/2005 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 Tony Campbell, Petitioner, 9 10 11 No. CIV S-05-2016 LKK CMK P vs. Folsom State Prison1 Respondents. 12 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 14 15 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma 16 pauperis. Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this 17 18 action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court's 19 20 consideration of claims sought to be presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v. 21 Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion 22 23 24 25 26 "A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). In the instant action, petitioner has named Folsom State Prison as the respondent. This entity is 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 will result in the dismissal of the petition with leave to amend. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-02016-LKK-CMK Document 5 Filed 10/21/2005 Page 2 of 2 1 requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all 2 claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971), 3 Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 4 After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has 5 failed to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner indicates on his application for a writ of habeas 6 corpus that he has neither directly appealed nor filed any applications or petitions with respect to 7 this judgment with any court. It is clear that these claims have not been presented to the 8 California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer 9 available to him. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application 10 11 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 12 District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 13 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 14 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 15 captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be 16 served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that 17 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 18 Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 20 DATED: October 19, 2005. 21 22 23 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 2

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.