Opinions and documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOSEPH RICHARD CIVIL, Case No. 3:24-cv-1773-JE
Petitioner, ORDER
v.
ANGELA BRANDENBURG,
Respondent.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on March 5, 2025. Judge Jelderks recommended that this Court grant Respondent’s
motion to dismiss, dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack of exhaustion, and enter
judgment dismissing this case without prejudice.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither
party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to
require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the court
must review de novo magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but
not otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Act “does not
preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other
standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the
Court review the magistrate judge’s recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
Petitioner, representing himself, timely filed an objection, to which Respondent did not
respond. Petitioner objects to the portion of Judge Jelderks’s recommendation finding that
Petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies. In his objections, Petitioner states that his
appointed attorneys were too busy to assist him, and accordingly that he was in custody for
months before a trial was scheduled. Petitioner acknowledges that he has not exhausted state
remedies but argues that no available state remedies are adequate because they will require him
to “continue to sit in custody for crimes [he] did not commit.”
Although there is no statutory exhaustion requirement for habeas petitions brought
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Ninth Circuit has held that, “as a prudential matter,” habeas
petitioners must exhaust available state judicial and administrative remedies. Castro-Cortez v.
INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Fernandez-Vargas v.
Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006). Exhaustion is not required “if resort to state remedies would be
futile.” Sweet v. Cupp, 640 F.2d 233, 236 (9th Cir. 1981). Petitioner has argued that state
remedies would be inadequate, which, given Petitioner’s pro se status, the Court construes as a
futility argument. Petitioner contends that state remedies are inadequate only because they would
require him to remain in custody. This does not suffice to render a state remedy futile; if it did,
every habeas petitioner could claim futility because the petitioner remains in custody while
exhausting state remedies. Thus, Petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies or shown that an
exception to exhaustion applies.
The Court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation, ECF 13. The Court GRANTS
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 8, and dismisses this case without prejudice for Petitioner
to file another federal habeas case after he exhausts his state and administrative remedies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 28th day of April, 2025.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.