Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dasher v. Lmartel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 2, 2009

TERRENCE DASHER, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL LMARTEL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 13, 2009, petitioner filed his petition challenging the loss of good time credits as a result of disciplinary proceedings. In his petition, petitioner indicates that he exhausted administrative remedies and attempted to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Amador County Superior Court challenging the disciplinary conviction, but that the petition was denied because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would not forward his administrative appeal to that court. Petitioner does not indicate whether he filed a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court.

Petitioner is cautioned that the exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Therefore, the court will order petitioner to file a response to this court order explaining whether he has exhausted his state court remedies.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days from the service of this order, petitioner shall file a response to this order which explains whether petitioner has exhausted state court remedies by presenting his claims to the California Supreme Court.

20090402

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.