Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00231-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL HERNANDEZ, JR., )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:11-cv-00231-LJO-JLT HC 

RENEWED AND SUBSTITUTE ORDER

ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 34)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 32)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO REFER CASE BACK TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

REGARDING GROUND ONE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On February 7, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus containing a

single claim for relief. (Doc. 1). After requesting and receiving a stay of proceedings to exhaust

an additional claim in state court, Petitioner filed a first amended petition on February 7, 2012

containing the original claim and a newly exhausted claim. (Doc. 27). On February 9, 2012, the

Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the first amended petition. (Doc. 28). On April

10, 2012, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss ground two in the amended petition as untimely

because it did not relate back to the original claim. (Doc. 32). On June 15, 2012, the Magistrate

1

Case 1:11-cv-00231-LJO-JLT Document 38 Filed 10/10/12 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

Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and Recommendation recommending that

Respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied, concluding that the newly exhausted claim did relate

back to the original claim. (Doc. 34). This Findings and Recommendation was served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date

of service of that order. October 5, 2012, without any objections having been filed, the Court

inadvertently issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations to

grant Respondent’s motion and dismiss ground two, rather than to deny the motion to dismiss. 

(Doc. 36). By separate order, the Court has vacated that inadvertent order. 

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 concludes that

the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation issued on June 15, 2012 is supported by

the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 15, 2012 (Doc. 34), is ADOPTED

IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32), is DENIED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to refer the case back to the Magistrate

Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-00231-LJO-JLT Document 38 Filed 10/10/12 Page 2 of 2