Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01479/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01479-12/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. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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. Pending before the court are respondent’s motion

to dismiss (Doc. 40) and petitioner’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 42). 

In his motion to dismiss, respondent contends that the petition is premature

because the sentence has been vacated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to

Cunningham v. California, 127 S.Ct. 856 (Jan. 22, 2007), and petitioner has not yet been resentenced by the state court. Petitioner concedes these facts, but states that, because only Claim

VI raised the Cunningham issue, his petition is not premature as to the remaining claims. The

court does not agree. The Supreme Court’s order rendered petitioner’s entire criminal case nonfinal because it requires the state court to re-sentence him. Because all of petitioner’s claims

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 44 Filed 03/27/08 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

2

relate to his conviction and sentence, and because petitioner may not proceed in this court until

his conviction and sentence are final, see O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999),

petitioner may not proceed on any claims. Respondent is correct that the entire petition is

premature. 

This conclusion will not result in a statute of limitations problem for petitioner

with respect to his claims not raising the Cunningham issue. As indicated above, petitioner’s

entire sentence was vacated, having the result that his state court case is not final as to any

claims. The one-year limitations period will begin to run anew from the date his conviction

becomes final again following re-sentencing. In the meantime, this action should be dismissed

without prejudice. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 40) be granted; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 42) be denied as moot;

3. This action be dismissed without prejudice. 

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 20 days

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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: March 27, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 44 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 2