From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Slade v. Madden

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 13, 2021
2:21-cv-00464 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-00464 GGH P

08-13-2021

BARRY SLADE, Petitioner, v. RAYMOND MADDEN, Respondent.


ORDER

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a document informing the court that he has exhausted his claims by presenting his claims to the California Court of Appeal. ECF No. 7. However, petitioner is mistaken. 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) (emphasis added); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). Accordingly, petitioner must present his claims to the California Supreme Court. Petitioner will be granted one more opportunity to file a motion to stay or risk a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner file a motion for stay within twenty-one days. Petitioner is warned that failure to file a motion for stay and abeyance within the court's deadline will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed as unexhausted.


Summaries of

Slade v. Madden

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 13, 2021
2:21-cv-00464 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021)
Case details for

Slade v. Madden

Case Details

Full title:BARRY SLADE, Petitioner, v. RAYMOND MADDEN, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 13, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-00464 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021)