Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01479/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01479-9/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

COLLIE GEORGE DOWNER, No. CIV S-06-1479-JKS-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

M. CRAMER, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 4, 2007, the district judge referred this

matter to the undersigned to provide petitioner an opportunity to exercise one of the options

outlined in the court’s February 28, 2007, findings and recommendations. 

Specifically, the court determined that the current petition is mixed in that it

contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. As outlined in the February 28, 2007, findings

and recommendations:

. . . [O]f the six claims raised in the petition, three of them are

unexhausted. Respondent concedes that Claims I, III, and VI are

exhausted. Respondent contends, however, that Claims II, IV, and V are

unexhausted. 

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 32 Filed 11/02/07 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

On October 11, 2007, petitioner submitted a letter asking whether the court had 1

received an amended petition he mailed to the court on or about September 19, 2007. Petitioner

is advised that no such document has been received by the court. Also, on October 29, 2007,

petitioner filed a motion requesting an extension of time (Doc. 30) to file an amended petition. 

Because no deadline to file an amended petition had been set at the time of petitioner’s filing, the

motion will be denied as unnecessary. 

2

According to the petition, these claims are:

Claim II – “Judge Moscone was unduly prejudiced by

Elizabeth’s father to deny petitioner his right to a fair trial

by a letter sent to the judge as part of his plan to sue

petitioner for $12,000,000.00.”

Claim IV – “The prosecutor committed constitutional error

by eliciting, failing to correct & arguing known false

testimony & referring to evidence to support this perjury

which had been excluded by the court.”

Claim V – “Petitioner was denied his right to present a

defense and his right to present all evidence; crossexamination & confrontation due to the trial court’s refusal

to conduct an in camera review of Elizabeth’s diary in

which she wrote about the alleged assault.”

A review of petitioner’s state court filings, which respondent has

submitted as exhibits to his motion, reveals that these claims were not

presented to the state court. Claims II and IV were not raised at all. As to

Claim V, while petitioner argued to the state court that the trial court erred

by refusing to allow the defense to present evidence of the victim’s

psychological history, petitioner did not raise any argument regarding the

victim’s diaries. In response to respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioner

filed a motion for a stay-and-abeyance order to allow him to present his

unexhausted claims to the state court. Thus, petitioner concedes that the

petition contains unexhausted claims. 

The court also determined that plaintiff should not be granted a stay and abeyance

order. Because the petition is mixed, petitioner now has the following options: (1) file an

amended petition which deletes the unexhausted claims and presents only exhausted claims; or

(2) accept dismissal of the entire petition, including the exhausted claims, without prejudice to

re-filing the petition once all the claims have been exhausted in state court. 

1

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 32 Filed 11/02/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 30 days of the date of this order, petitioner may file an amended

petition deleting the unexhausted claims and raising only exhausted claims;

2. If plaintiff does not file an amended petition within the time specified

above, the court will deem petitioner’s inaction as consent to voluntary dismissal of the current

mixed petition, without prejudice; and

3. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 30) is denied as

unnecessary.

DATED: November 1, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 32 Filed 11/02/07 Page 3 of 3