Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00209/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00209-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN DOUGLAS BAXTER, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN RUNNELS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-00209 REC DLB HC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS “MIXED

PETITION” AND DIRECTING CLERK OF

COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT

[Docs, 7, 9]

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 February 15, 2005. Pursuant to the Court’s order,

Petitioner filed an amended petition on March 11, 2005. On March 22, 2005, the Magistrate

Judge assigned to this action issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the

instant petition be dismissed as a mixed petition; however, prior to dismissal the Court

recommended that Petitioner be granted the opportunity to withdraw the unexhausted claims. On

May 18, 2005, the undersigned adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted Petitioner

thirty days to withdraw the unexhausted claims. To date, Petitioner has not responded to the

Court’s order. Accordingly, dismissal is warranted.

As stated by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner indicates that only Ground Three was

presented to the California Supreme Court, and Grounds One and Two remain unexhausted. The

Court has previously granted Petitioner the opportunity to withdraw the unexhausted claims to

Case 1:05-cv-00209-REC-DLB Document 10 Filed 07/15/05 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

1

 The Court must dismiss such a petition without prejudice to give Petitioner an opportunity to exhaust the

claim if he can do so. See Pliler v. Ford, 121 S.Ct. 2441, 2444 (2004); Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22. 

However, Petitioner should be provided with an opportunity to withdraw the unexhausted claim as an

alternative to dismissal. Smith v. Ratelle, 323 F.3d 813, 816-819 (9th Cir.2003); Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568,

574 (9th Cir.2000) (“district courts must provide habeas litigants with the opportunity to amend their mixed petitions

by striking unexhausted claims as an alternative to suffering dismissal”). 

2

which he has failed to do, thus the action must be dismissed without prejudice.1 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The instant petition is DISMISSED, without prejudice; and 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment thus terminating this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00209-REC-DLB Document 10 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2