Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00678/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00678-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS EARL EVANS,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES TILTON,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 07-00678 AWI DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING

PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW

UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS, DENYING

MOTION TO DISMISS, AND REFERRING

MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[Docs. 11, 13, 17] 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On September 11, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as containing both exhausted

and unexhausted claims in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). In lieu of dismissal, without

prejudice, the Court granted Petitioner the opportunity to withdraw the unexhausted claims and

proceed only with the exhausted claims. 

On December 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a request to dismiss the unexhausted claims and

proceed with the exhausted claims. (Court Doc. 17.) As such, Respondent’s motion to dismiss

the petition is now moot and shall be denied on that ground.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the

Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Case 1:07-cv-00678-AWI-DLB Document 18 Filed 02/04/08 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

27

28

2

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued September 11, 2007, is ADOPTED in

FULL; 

2. Petitioner’s request to withdraw the unexhausted claims is GRANTED;

3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, without prejudice, is DENIED as

MOOT; and,

4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00678-AWI-DLB Document 18 Filed 02/04/08 Page 2 of 2