Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00870/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00870-4/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

MICHAEL LEE CHILDRESS, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-0870 DFL GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, has filed this

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order filed on March

28, 2006, the district judge rejected the September 20, 2005 findings and recommendations and

denied petitioner’s April 18, 2005 motion for judgment on the pleadings as to claim two. Judge

Levi referred the case to the undersigned for further proceedings. 

Prior to the adjudication of claim two, petitioner had been proceeding on three

claims. Petitioner has accurately noted that the Ninth Circuit has found that all claims of a

habeas petition need not be addressed or adjudicated if the claim or issue decided is dispositive

of the action. See Blazak v. Ricketts, 971 F.2d 1408, 1411-1413 (9th Cir. 1992). That is, if the

writ had been granted on the ground recommended, adjudicating the additional claims could not

have provided further relief; thus, the remaining claims would have been rendered moot. 

Case 2:02-cv-00870-DFL-GGH Document 51 Filed 04/03/06 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

However, in light of the denial of petitioner’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings as to ground two, this matter must now proceed as to the two remaining claims, claim

one (trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the defense theory violated petitioner’s right to due

process and right to present a defense) and claim three (trial court erred by instructing the jury on

the wrong burden of proof regarding the defense of necessity). An answer to the amended

petition and a reply (traverse) have been previously filed, wherein all grounds for relief were

briefed. The matter is now submitted solely on the two remaining grounds for relief, claims one

and three. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/31/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GGH:009 

chil0870.prc GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00870-DFL-GGH Document 51 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 2