(HC) Vasquez v. Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE ALEJANDRO VASQUEZ, No. 2:24-cv-2818-TLN-SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Jorge Alejandro Vasquez (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding without 18 counsel, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter 19 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 20 Rule 302. 21 On November 25, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to 23 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 In Petitioner’s objections, he indicates that the California Court of Appeal has denied his 26 pending appeal. (ECF No. 7.) An online search of the California Appellate Courts Case 27 Information database reveals that petitioner filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the 28 California Supreme Court on November 7, 2024. See California Supreme Court Docket, 1 | https://rb.gy/1kle07, last visited 2/10/25. This state habeas petition remains pending rendering his 2 || state court remedies unexhausted. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) 3 | (explaining that exhaustion requires the completion of “one complete round” of state court 4 | review). Therefore, the magistrate judge’s conclusion is correct even considering this additional 5 | information. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 7 | Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 8 | Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 9 | analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 5) are adopted in full. 12 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed without 13 || prejudice for failing to exhaust state court remedies. 14 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2253. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Date: February 20, 2025 18 19 : Ze 21 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28