Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00159/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00159-2/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS CHRISTOPHER CATO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

TOM CAREY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 05 0159 OWW SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #7]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 3, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

granted Petitioner’s application for authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition.

On March 30, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as

successive and for failure to exhaust state remedies. In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended

that Petitioner’s motion for a stay be DENIED. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the

Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was served on

all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date

Case 1:05-cv-00159-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 3
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

of service of the order. 

On August 8, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis.

In his objections, Petitioner argues his motion for a stay of the proceedings was wrongfully

denied. He states the petition incorrectly implies that a habeas petition is currently pending at the

California Supreme Court. In fact, there are no petitions pending in any state court at this time.

Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge’s findings are therefore based on incorrect information

and must be rejected. Petitioner’s argument is without merit. The Magistrate Judge found the claim ,

and therefore the entire petition, to be unexhausted. Petitioner’s statements do not alter this fact.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), Petitioner must first exhaust his state remedies. While it is true

that a district court has discretion to hold a fully exhausted petition or a mixed petition in abeyance,

no authority exists which supports holding a totally unexhausted petition in abeyance. Rhines v.

Weber, __ U.S. __, __, 125 S.Ct.1528, 1533, 2005 WL 711587 (2005); Calderon v. United States

Dist. Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618,620 (9th Cir. 1998); Calderon v. United States District Court

(Taylor), 134 F.3d. 981, 988 (9th Cir 1998). Because the instant petition is totally unexhausted, the

Magistrate Judge properly recommended that the motion to stay be denied.

Petitioner also claims there was no cause to recommend the petition be dismissed “with

prejudice.” Petitioner argues that his failure to exhaust should result in a dismissal without prejudice.

However, the Magistrate Judge acknowledged this fact but recommended that the dismissal be with

prejudice “[b]ecause the petition is successive.” See Findings and Recommendation at 5. The

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is not improper because there is nothing Petitioner can do

should he re-file his petition which would change the fact that his petition is barred as successive. 

Petitioner also takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the petition should be

dismissed as successive. Petitioner attempts to circumvent the Magistrate Judge’s finding that his

claim could have been, and was in fact, discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence

Case 1:05-cv-00159-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 3
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

by placing blame on his appellate attorney for failing to raise and exhaust the issue in the California

Supreme Court despite his voiced desire that his attorney do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i).

Petitioner’s argument is without merit. As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner had several

opportunities to present his claim to the state courts apart from the petition for review to the

California Supreme Court. Petitioner could have raised the claim in his subsequent habeas petitions

in the state courts. He could also have requested a stay of the proceedings in his first federal habeas

petition, just as he has done in this case.

In sum, Petitioner’s objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge’s

analysis. There is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations based on the points raised

in the objections.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued March 30, 2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 

3. Petitioner’s motion for stay of the proceedings is DENIED; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00159-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 3