Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00119-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAIN D. MOORE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0119 GEB GGH P

vs.

WARDEN CAMPBELL, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is proceeding on the original petition filed

January 18, 2006. Petitioner originally raised five claims for relief: 1 ) conviction obtained

pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure; 2) ineffective assistance of counsel; 3)

sentence violates Eighth Amendment; 4) jury instruction error; and 5) trial court improperly

denied petitioner’s motion for a new trial.

On March 7, 2006, the court granted petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss

claim five. On November 3, 2006, the court dismissed claims 1 and 3.

On September 1, 2006, the court issued an order finding that claim 2 was not

exhausted based on petitioner’s representation in his July 7, 2006, pleading that he had a habeas

corpus petition pending in the California Supreme Court raising this claim. The court ordered

Case 2:06-cv-00119-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 03/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

petitioner to file briefing within twenty days addressing whether he had good cause for failing to

exhaust this claim in state court prior to bringing this action. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269,

125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005)(a habeas petition may be stayed for further exhaustion if the petitioner can

show good cause for his failure to first exhaust claims in state court).

Twenty days passed and petitioner did not file a response to the September 1,

2006, order for further briefing. Accordingly, on January 11, 2007, the court ordered petitioner

to show cause for his failure to file a response. On January 19, 2007, petitioner filed a response

stating that he addressed the issue of good cause in his objections to findings and

recommendations filed September 12, 2006. Good cause appearing, the show cause order is

discharged. The court construes petitioner’s objections to contain a request that this action be

stayed pending exhaustion of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 

In his objections, petitioner states that he believed that all of his claims were

exhausted. Petitioner also states that he has limited knowledge of the law and suffers from a life

long seizure disorder, which affects his cognitive abilities. 

Petitioner’s claim that he believed he exhausted all claims before filing this action

is inconsistent with his representation that he had a habeas corpus petition pending in the

California Supreme Court. In other words, if petitioner knew he had a habeas petition pending in

the California Supreme Court in July 2006 which raised some of the claims raised in this action,

then he must have known that not all claims were exhausted. Accordingly, the court finds that

petitioner has not shown good cause for his failure to exhaust his ineffective assistance of

counsel claim prior to bringing this action. 

Because this action is proceeding on an exhausted claim (jury instruction error)

and an unexhausted claim (ineffective assistance of counsel), petitioner has two choices as to

how to proceed. He may either 1) dismiss this entire action; 2) dismiss the unexhausted claim

and proceed on the exhausted claim only. If petitioner chooses to dismiss this entire action and

refile it once all claims are exhausted, he must keep in mind that there is a one year statute of

Case 2:06-cv-00119-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 03/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

limitations for federal habeas corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Within ten days of the

adoption of these findings and recommendations by the district court, petitioner shall inform the

court how he intends to proceed. If the district court does not adopt these findings and

recommendations, the court will issue further orders.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s request to stay

this action pending exhaustion of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim be denied; within ten

days of adoption of these findings and recommendations, petitioner inform the court as to how he

intends to proceed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 3/2/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

mo119.dis

Case 2:06-cv-00119-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 03/02/07 Page 3 of 3