Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05783/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05783-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHINEHAS LAMONT PARKER, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5783 OWW SMS HC

Petitioner, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING

vs. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND REFERRING

Respondent. ACTION BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 / FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

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 on May 24, 2004, in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. By order of June 1, 2004, the action was transferred

to the Fresno Division. On October 27, 2004, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the

petition. 

On December 27, 2004, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the instant

petition was a “mixed” petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. On March 9, 2005,

the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending the following: 1) Respondent’s motion

to dismiss be granted; 2) deny Petitioner’s request to hold the action in abeyance pending exhaustion

without prejudice, and 3) grant Petitioner leave to withdraw the unexhausted claims and request to hold

the action in abeyance or delete the unexhausted claims. (Court Doc. 18.)

Case 1:04-cv-05783-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 06/22/05 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

Petitioner filed objections on April 19, 2005. On April 27, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice to the

Court that the unexhausted claims had now been exhausted by the California Supreme Court. Therefore,

on May 9, 2005, the Court directed Respondent to file a response addressing whether the unexhausted

claims had been exhausted. On May 25, 2005, Respondent filed a response indicating that the

unexhausted claims had been exhausted by the California Supreme Court. (Court Doc. 22.)

Because the unexhausted claims have now been exhausted, the Court will vacate the Findings

and Recommendations and deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as a “mixed” petition. The

Court will refer the action back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations of March 9, 2005, are VACATED; 

2. Respondent’s December 27, 2004, motion to dismiss is DENIED; and

3. The action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05783-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 2