IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 12, 2012
JAMES RAYNOR, PETITIONER,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived explicitly by respondents' counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).*fn1 A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986).
Petitioner was convicted on November 1, 1995.*fn2 After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court remedies are no longer available to petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice.
In light of the above, petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 5);
2. The application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies;
3. Petitioner's May 9, 2012 motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 3) is denied without prejudice;
4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253; and
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the instant order, together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney General of the State of California.