Warden

Gaylord A. McKenzie v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNovember 8, 20225:22-cv-01508California1,150 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, Gaylord McKenzie (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2018 conviction. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 2. Petitioner appears to admit his third claim is subject to dismissal because it is unexhausted. Id. at 6. Petitioner requests a stay, though he does not explain the grounds or basis for his request. Id. at 10, 51; Dkt. 3. The Court will not make a final determination regarding whether the claim should be dismissed, however, without giving Petitioner an opportunity to suppelement his request for a stay or file an amended petition.

II.

DISCUSSION

A state prisoner must exhaust his or her state court remedies before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must fairly present his or her federal claims in the state courts to give the state the opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of the petitioner’s federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam). A…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.