Luis Ray Johnson v. Kevin Hixon

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 19, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03272
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS RAY JOHNSON, No. 2:25-CV-03272-TLN-DMC-P (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. 14 KEVIN HIXON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for a writ 19 of habeas corpus. See ECF No. 1. 20 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary 21 dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits 22 annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the instant case, it 23 is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. In particular, the exhaustion of 24 available state remedies is required before claims can be presented to the federal court in a habeas 25 corpus case. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); see also Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 26 1066 (9th Cir. 2003); Hunt v. Pliler, 336 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2003). A petitioner can satisfy the 27 exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to 28 consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 1 |} 270, 276 (1971), Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). 2 Upon review of the instant petition, the court concludes that petitioner has not exhausted 3 || state court remedies as to any of his claims. The petition indicates that Petitioner did not file any 4 || appeals, nor has Petitioner previously filed any petitions, applications, or motions with respect to 5 || their conviction in state or federal court. See ECF No. 1, pgs. 2-3. 6 Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s petition for a writ 7 || of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be summarily dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust 8 | state court remedies. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 13 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 14 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 | Dated: March 19, 2026 SS GC M7 DENNIS M. COTA 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28