Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01809/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01809-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Petitioner references a sixth claim in his stay-and-abeyance order. No such claim

1

exists. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE RIDER, No. CIV S-04-1809-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

S. KERNAN,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently pending before the court are petitioner’s

petition (Doc. 1) and petitioner’s motion for an order staying the instant proceedings and holding

consideration of his claims in abeyance pending exhaustion of state remedies (“stay-andabeyance order”) (Doc. 13). Also before the court is respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9).

The instant petition raises five claims. Petitioner initially raised all five claims to 1

the state court in his initial brief on direct appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected his claim and

affirmed his conviction and sentence. Petitioner abandoned two of the claims by not raising

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 19 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

them in his brief to the California Supreme Court. The court notes that petitioner was

represented by counsel at all stages of his state court proceedings. In his motion for a stay-andabeyance order, petitioner fails to establish good cause for failing to present all of the claims

raised here to the highest state court. Given that petitioner was represented by counsel at his

state court proceedings, it appears that he purposefully chose not to pursue two of his claims. He

cannot now ask this court to consider claims which he chose not to present to the state court. 

Therefore, petitioner’s motion for a stay-and-abeyance order should be denied.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s motion for

a stay-and-abeyance order be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 19 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 2