Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00347/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00347-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR )

COURT, et al., )

)

)

Respondents. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00347-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

PETITION (Doc. 11)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Docs. 1 & 3)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION AS MOOT (Doc. 12)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on March 28, 2006. (Doc. 1). On

April 6, 2006, Petitioner filed an amended petition that contained no grounds for relief. (Doc. 3). 

On December 6, 2007, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the two

petitions because Petitioner’s state appeal was ongoing and therefore the federal court should

abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45. (Doc. 11). This Findings and

Recommendation 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

Case 1:06-cv-00347-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 01/11/08 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

timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. However, on December 27, 2007,

Petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the petitions in order to exhaust his remedies in

state court. (Doc. 12). 

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 Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner has filed a “motion to dismiss” requesting the the opportunity to exhaust his

claims in state court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation, filed December 6, 2007 (Doc. 11), is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus and amended petition (Docs. 1 & 3), are

DISMISSED; 

3. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 12), is DENIED as MOOT; and,

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file. 

This order terminates the action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00347-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 2