Latoya R. Finley-Carminer v. Sacramento County Sheriff, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02789
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LATOYA R. FINLEY-CARMINER, No. 2:25-cv-2789 DAD CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing 21 required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 Petitioner challenges a pending arrest warrant issued in Sacramento County, California, 24 alleging that there is no probable cause to support the arrest warrant. Petitioner claims she faces 25 imminent unlawful detention and requests emergency relief. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Therefore, the 26 Court construes the instant petition as being filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 27 The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for 28 writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived 1 explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may 2 not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the 3 highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to 4 the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 5 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 6 After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the Court finds that petitioner has failed to 7 exhaust state court remedies. There are no allegations that petitioner challenged the warrant in 8 the Sacramento County court where the arrest warrant issued. (ECF No. 1, passim.) The claims 9 have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state 10 court remedies are no longer available to petitioner. Accordingly, the petition should be 11 dismissed without prejudice.2 12 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 14 2. The Court construes the instant petition as being filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; 15 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and 16 recommendations together with a copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney 17 General of the State of California; and 18 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 19 1. Petitioner’s request for emergency relief be denied; and 20 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to exhaust 21 state remedies. 22 /// 23 1 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 2254(b)(2).

25 2 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period 26 will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of 27 direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral 28 review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). ] These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within fourteen days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 4 || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 5 || Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 7 || (Oth Cir. 1991). 8 9 | Dated: October 1, 2025 4 aA 10 \ Aaa spe CHI SOO KIM i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 /1/finl2789.103 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28