Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00994/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00994-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MICHAEL ALVARADO,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-00994 OWW DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY AND

ABEYANCE; ORDER REGARDING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY

DISMISS PETITION; AND REFERRING

MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

[Docs. 9, 13]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 12, 2007. On July

23, 2007, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the instant

petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust the state court remedies. Specifically, it was noted

that Petitioner had conceded that all of the claims raised in the instant petition were currently

pending before the California Supreme Court by way of a state petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

(Findings & Recommendation, at 3.) 

On July 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for a stay and abeyance. (Court Doc. 6.) On

August 31, 2007, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that

Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance be denied. (Court Doc. 9.) 

On October 23, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

(Court Doc. 12.) Then on November 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to voluntarily

Case 1:07-cv-00994-DLB Document 14 Filed 12/03/07 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

27

28 The Court notes that no finding as to the timeliness of the instant petition has been made. 1

2

dismiss the petition. (Court Doc. 13.) 

In his objections, Petitioner acknowledges that the instant federal petition contains only

unexhausted claims. (Objections, at 6.) Petitioner filed his state habeas corpus petition in the

California Supreme Court on April 13, 2007, which was still pending at the time the instant

petition was filed. (Petition, at XX; Motion Voluntarily Dismiss, at 4.) In his motion for

voluntarily dismissal, Petitioner states that the California Supreme Court denied his state petition

on October 10, 2007. (Motion, at 4.) Petitioner requests that the Court dismiss the instant

petition, without prejudice, to allow him to file a new petition as the claims have now been

exhausted. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner is advised that it is unnecessary to file a new petition, as the

Court will allow him to proceed with the instant petition based on his contention that the claims

are now all fully exhausted. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the instant

petition shall be DISREGARDED as unnecessary. This also renders Petitioner’s motion for 1

stay and abeyance as MOOT.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations are adopted with the modification that

Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance is now MOOT as the claims have all

been fully exhausted; 

2. Petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the instant petition is DISREGARDED

as unnecessary; and

3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for issuance of briefing

schedule. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00994-DLB Document 14 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 2