Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00787/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00787-1/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

TYRELL T. BROWN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0787 DFL DAD P

vs.

M.S. EVANS, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion to withdraw his petition

without prejudice to re-filing after exhausting state court remedies.

Petitioner states that he is making his motion “in light of the court’s most recent

denial of petitioner’s motion to have the habeas corpus stayed and abated.” (Mot. to Withdraw

Pet’r’s Habeas Corpus at 1.) The court has not denied petitioner’s motion for a stay. Indeed, the

court directed respondent to file a response to petitioner’s motion for a stay filed on April 12,

2006. Petitioner filed a second motion for a stay on May 9, 2006, and the court denied that

motion because it was an incomplete copy of petitioner’s pending motion.

In respondent’s timely and thorough response to petitioner’s motion for a stay,

respondent provides a detailed summary of petitioner’s state court proceedings. Respondent

Case 2:06-cv-00787-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 07/18/06 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

states that petitioner is still within the one year statute of limitations at this time and currently has

two state habeas petitions pending in the California Supreme Court. Respondent contends that

the two grounds for relief alleged in petitioner’s federal habeas petition do not assert federal

claims and that one of the two claims appears to be unexhausted. Respondent concludes that

petitioner’s request to withdraw his petition as premature should be granted.

Because of petitioner’s misconception about the status of his motion to stay, the

court will wait ten days before honoring petitioner’s motion to withdraw. If the motion to

withdraw is granted, this case will be dismissed without prejudice, and the case will be closed. 

Petitioner may then file a new federal habeas case after exhausting state court remedies. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, absent a request to the contrary

filed within ten days, petitioner’s motion to withdraw his petition without prejudice will be

granted and this case will be closed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) & Rule 11, Fed. R. Governing

Habeas Corpus Cases Under § 2254.

DATED: July 17, 2006.

DAD:13

brow0787.159a

Case 2:06-cv-00787-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2