Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06207/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06207-1/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO REYES, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

)

JOE McGRATH, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02 6207 OWW LJO HC 

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION OF JUNE 2, 2005,

THAT HAD RECOMMENDED THE

PETITION BE DISMISSED

[Doc. #77]

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS AS A MOTION TO STRIKE

UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS

[Doc. #78]

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO STRIKE UNEXHAUSTED

CLAIMS

[Doc. #78]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On June 2, 2005, this Court issued a Findings and Recommendation that recommended the

petition be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies with respect to Grounds Two,

Six, Nine, and all allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The

parties were granted thirty (30) days to file objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

On June 9, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Petitioner

states he inadvertently failed to file a motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims. He asks that his

Case 1:02-cv-06207-LJO-LJO Document 79 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

objections be construed as a motion to strike. 

Accordingly, good cause having been presented and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The Findings and Recommendation dated June 2, 2005, is hereby VACATED;

2) Petitioner’s objections are CONSTRUED as a motion to strike the unexhausted claims;

and

3) Petitioner’s motion to strike is GRANTED; Grounds Two, Six, Nine, and all allegations of

ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct are hereby DELETED from the

petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06207-LJO-LJO Document 79 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 2