Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01220/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01220-7/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

WILLIAM ROBERT STANKEWITZ, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., )

)

)

Respondents. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-01220-LJO-JLT HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 33)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF

EXHAUSTION (Doc. 13)

ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER FIFTEEN

DAYS TO WITHDRAW UNEXHAUSTED

GROUND SIX AND PROCEED ON

GROUNDS ONE THROUGH FIVE OR HAVE

PETITION DISMISSED

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 14, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, contending that

the petition should be dismissed as a mixed petition because Ground Six in the instant petition

was not exhausted in state court. (Doc. 13). Subsequently, Petitioner requested, and was

granted, a stay of proceedings in order to exhaust Ground Six. (Docs. 12 & 19). On May 5,

2010, the Court issued an order lifting the stay of proceedings because of Petitioner’s failure to

keep the Court apprised of the status of his exhaustion efforts through regularly filed status

1

Case 1:06-cv-01220-LJO -JLT Document 34 Filed 06/17/10 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

reports. (Doc. 33). That order also contained Findings and Recommendations that Ground Six

was not exhausted, that the petition was therefore a mixed petition, and that Respondent’s motion

to dismiss should be granted. (Id.). The Findings and Recommendations indicated that

Petitioner would be given an opportunity to withdraw Ground Six and proceed on the remaining

claims before the Court dismissed the petition outright as a mixed petition. The Findings and

Recommendations 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. To date, the parties have not filed

any objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

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 Recommendations is supported by the record and proper

analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 7, 2010 (Doc. 33), is ADOPTED

IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of exhaustion as to Ground Six (Doc.

13), is GRANTED; 

4. Petitioner is granted fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order in

which to file a motion to withdraw the unexhausted Ground Six and proceed on

the remaining claims, i.e., Grounds One through Five. If Petitioner fails to file

such a motion within the time provided by this order, the Court will enter an

order dismissing the petition as a mixed petition containing unexhausted claims

and enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:06-cv-01220-LJO -JLT Document 34 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2