Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02417/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02417-7/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

 Petitioner continues to argue the substance of his underlying habeas petition; however, 1

he has failed to meet the procedural requirements of Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). This

court cannot reach the merits of petitioner’s habeas petition until a fully exhausted petition is

before the court, Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982), and all briefing, including an answer

from respondent, is completed.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS F. RISELEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2417 DFL JFM P

vs.

WARDEN, PLEASANT VALLEY

STATE PRISON,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 14, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

1

Case 2:04-cv-02417-JKS-JFM Document 44 Filed 03/05/07 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 14, 2006, are adopted in part; 

2. Petitioner’s May 1, 2006 motion for stay and abeyance is denied;

3. Petitioner’s May 30, 2006 writ of mandamus, construed as a request for

reconsideration is denied; and

4. Within twenty days from the date of any order of the district court adopting

these findings and recommendations, petitioner shall file a document signed by petitioner stating

unequivocally which option petitioner chooses. Failure to timely comply with that order will

result in a recommendation that petitioner’s unexhausted claims have been abandoned and the

court will proceed solely on petitioner’s exhausted claims. 

DATED: 3/2/2007

/s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/rise2417.805hc

Case 2:04-cv-02417-JKS-JFM Document 44 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 2