Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00254/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00254-6/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL MORALES HERNANDEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DARREL G. ADAMS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

1:08-cv-00254 LJO YNP [DLB] (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS

[Doc. #18]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the

Monterey County Superior Court. (Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 1.) The Superior Court denied the petition

on January 22, 2007, on the ground that the petition was not properly served. (Mot. to Dismiss,

Ex. 2.) 

On February 19, 2007, Petitioner field a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the California

Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District. (Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 3.) On April 11, 2007, the Appellate

Court found that the Superior Court erred in its finding that the petition was improperly served. 

Noting that the Superior Court was prepared to consider the petition on the merits, the Appellate

Court denied the petition without prejudice so Petitioner could re-file in the Superior Court. (Mot. to

Dismiss, Ex. 4.) 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:08-cv-00254-LJO-MJS Document 50 Filed 02/18/10 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

27

28

On December 3, 2007, Petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus with this

Court. (Doc. #7.) On February 9, 2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss claiming that Petitioner

had not exhausted his state remedies because no State court has yet heard the petition on the merits.

(Doc. #18.) On March 9, 2009 Petitioner moved the Court to stay his petition while he exhausted his

claims in State court. (Doc. #42.) This Court granted that motion and ordered the case stayed on

May 1, 2009. (Doc. #43).

It has come to the Court’s attention that this case was never actually stayed on the docket;

however, Petitioner has diligently filed status reports every 60 days from the date of this Court’s

order. Due to the fact that no State court has had a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim in

the petition, the interests of comity and justice are better served by staying the petition pending

exhaustion rather than dismissing the petition outright. Respondent’s motion to dismiss should be

denied..

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss be DENIED;

2) the Clerk of the Court be DIRECTED to STAY this matter pending exhaustion;

3) Petitioner be DIRECTED to continue filing status reports entitled “Status Report” every

sixty (60) days as prescribed by this Court’s May 1, 2009 order; and

4) Respondent be DIRECTED to an answer to the petition within sixty (60) days of this order

in accordance with the order issued by this Court on December 9, 2008 (Doc. #12).

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and

Recommendation, 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

Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days

(plus three days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. The Finding and Recommendation

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:08-cv-00254-LJO-MJS Document 50 Filed 02/18/10 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

27

28

will then be submitted to the District Court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. MartineYlst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 3

Case 1:08-cv-00254-LJO-MJS Document 50 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 3