(HC) Brown v. CDCR, 2:15-cv-00966

Petitioner Leron Brown, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his March 2, 2015 conviction and April 6, 2015 sentence in Sacramento County Superior Court (Case No. 14F04720).
Petitioner had not paid the filing fee or filed an IFP application at time of filing.
The petition indicated Brown had not appealed or otherwise pursued collateral relief in state court, and he acknowledged awaiting a response from the Sacramento County Superior Court regarding an "appeal."
The court reviewed the Sacramento County docket (judicial notice) and confirmed the conviction and sentence dates asserted by Brown.
The magistrate judge found the petition wholly unexhausted and recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies under the exhaustion doctrine.
The clerk was ordered to randomly assign a district judge; petitioner was informed of the 21-day objection period and instructed to address certificate of appealability issues if he objected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner exhausted available state remedies before filing §2254 petition	Brown asserted claims of improper conviction/sentence but had not pursued appeal or full state-court review	State (and court) assert claims are unexhausted because Brown did not present them through the state appellate process, including the California Supreme Court	Petition is wholly unexhausted; recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4 and §2254(b)
Whether petitioner named the proper respondent	Not addressed substantively in petition	Court noted federal habeas must name the state official having custody (warden) per §2254 and Rules Governing §2254 Cases	Court advised proper respondent is the warden; procedural note to correct caption if proceeding further

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (exhaustion of state remedies is a prerequisite to federal habeas jurisdiction)
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (exhaustion requires presenting federal claims fairly to the state’s highest court)
Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) (wholly unexhausted federal habeas petitions must be dismissed without prejudice)
Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1985) (explaining exhaustion and fair presentation principles)
Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350 (9th Cir. 2004) (rule on proper respondent in federal habeas actions)
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge’s findings may waive appeal rights)
United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts may take judicial notice of their own records)
United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1980) (judicial notice of court records is permissible)