Madden

(HC) Slade v. Madden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 13, 20212:21-cv-00464California288 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 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…

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.