Latoya R. Finley-Carminer v. Sacramento County Sheriff, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LATOYA R. FINLEY-CARMINER, No. 2:25-cv-2789 DAD CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Respondents.

18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

23 Petitioner challenges a pending arrest warrant issued in Sacramento County, California, alleging that there is no probable cause to support the arrest warrant. Petitioner claims she faces imminent unlawful detention and requests emergency relief. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Therefore, the Court construes the instant petition as being filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

27 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 respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 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 5 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986).

6 After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the Court finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. There are no allegations that petitioner challenged the warrant in the Sacramento County court where the arrest warrant issued. (ECF No. 1, passim.) 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 should be dismissed without prejudice.2 12 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 14 2. The Court construes the instant petition as being filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; 15 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney General of the State of California; and 18 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 19 1. Petitioner’s request for emergency relief be denied; and 20 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust 21 state remedies.

22 /// A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).

25 2 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). ] These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within fourteen days || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and || Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 || (Oth Cir. 1991).

9 | Dated: October 1, 2025 4 aA 10 \ Aaa spe CHI SOO KIM i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 /1/finl2789.103