Madden

(HC) Slade v. Madden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 20, 20212:21-cv-00464California946 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BARRY SLADE, No. 2:21-cv-00464 GGH P Petitioner, v. ORDER RAYMOND MADDEN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Petitioner will be provided the opportunity to either submit the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or submit the appropriate filing fee. Review of the habeas petition shows petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. In his habeas petition, petitioner attests he presented his claims to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. ECF No. 1 at 2. However, when asked whether petitioner presented his claims to the highest state court, petitioner states it does not apply. Id. Based on petitioner’s…

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.