(HC) Bingaman v. Warden, No. 2:2023cv01796 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/04/23 ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations in full and DISMISSING this petition without prejudice. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED (Licea Chavez, V)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Bingaman v. Warden Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NOAH WAYNE BINGAMAN, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:23-cv-01796-TLN-EFB Petitioner, ORDER v. WARDEN, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 31, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Petitioner, and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. Specifically, Petitioner stated, after filing his 24 2241 petition in federal court, he had a bail review hearing in the state trial court, and therefore 25 exhausted his available state remedies. (ECF Nos. 8–9.) 26 As the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge stated, “courts in this 27 district have generally held that requiring exhaustion of section 2241 claims is the most prudent 28 option.” ECF No. 7 (citing, inter alia, Toft v. D’Agostini, 2022 WL 1433525, at 1-2 (E.D. Cal. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 April 8, 2022)). Thus, before seeking relief under section 2241, “‘habeas petitioners [must] 2 exhaust all available judicial and administrative remedies.’” Hawkins v. Kao, 2022 WL 3 17541033, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2022) (quoting Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 104, 678 4 F.3d 1042, 104, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012). 5 While Petitioner may have had a bail review hearing before the state trial court, he does 6 not appear to have appealed his bail denial to the Court of Appeal, as provided for under 7 California law. See, e.g. In re Harris, 71 Cal. App. 5th 1085, 1094-95 (2021). Thus, Petitioner 8 has not yet fully exhausted his available state remedies, which he must do before filing an 9 application for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 11 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case and addressed petitioner’s objections. Having 12 carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 13 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 14 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 31, 2023 (ECF No. 7) are 16 ADOPTED, in conjunction with the analysis of petitioner’s objections contained in 17 this Order; 18 2. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice, 19 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case, and 20 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 Date: December 4, 2023 22 23 24 25 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 26 27 28 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.
