Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06409/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06409-4/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

 Specifically, the Court found that part of Ground One and Ground Three were unexhausted. (Court Doc. 10.) 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONROE WALTER BURNS, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6409 OWW DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO

INFORM COURT OF HIS INTENT TO

vs. WITHDRAW THE UNEXHAUSTED 

CLAIMS

A.P. KANE, Warden, 

[Doc. 10]

Respondent.

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 18, 2004. Respondent

filed a motion to dismiss the petition as a “mixed” petition on December 20, 2004. On January 14,

2005, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Respondent’s motion to

dismiss be granted.1 On February 11, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations requesting that the Court hold the petition in abeyance while he exhausted the

unexhausted claims at the state court. On April 29, 2005, the Court issued an order to show cause why

the stay should be granted. Petitioner filed a response on May 26, 2005, and Respondent filed a

response on July 25, 2005. On July 27, 2005, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 20 Filed 09/15/05 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

recommending that Petitioner’s request for a stay be denied. Petitioner filed objections on August 25,

2005. The Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full on September 2, 2005, and Petitioner’s

request for a stay was denied. 

Accordingly, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall

inform the Court of his intent to either file a motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims or an amended

petition deleting the unexhausted claims as an alternative to suffering dismissal of the action. If no

response is received by the Court within twenty days from the date of service, the Court will submit

the Findings and Recommendations of January 14, 2005 to the District Court for resolution. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 15, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 20 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 2