(HC) Martin v. Jones

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MILES MARTIN, No. 2:20-cv-1845 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND SCOTT JONES, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner is a Sacramento County Jail prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

22 Petitioner challenges the calculation of his release date.

23 The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 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).

27 Petitioner’s habeas petition reveals he has not presented any of his claims in the California ///// wOAIS 2 SUV VRS NEE MIU I Ne AY ee | Supreme Court, or any other California court. Accordingly, he is not entitled to habeas corpus | relief here.

3 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is granted; and 5 2. The Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case.

6 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust state || court remedies; and 9 2. This case be closed.

10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written | objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections, petitioner may address whether a | certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this | case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or | deny certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as | here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should | issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the | district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it | debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris | v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 | (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive | the nght to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

25 | Dated: October 8, 2020 Cardy Kt |X 26 CAROLYN K DELANEY 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 38 V/gall1817.103