Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00130/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00130-0/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

07cv0130-W (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MENDIOLA,

Petitioner,

v.

W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden,

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-CV-0130-W (JMA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS PETITION

Petitioner initiated this action by filing a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 19, 2007. [Doc. No. 1] The

Court dismissed the Petition without prejudice and with leave to

amend on February 6, 2007. [Doc. No. 3] Thereafter, Petitioner

filed a First Amended Petition on April 26, 2007 (nunc pro tunc

to April 19, 2007). [Doc. No. 10] The First Amended Petition

raises a single ground for relief: that Petitioner’s Sixth

Amendment right to trial by jury was violated when the trial

court imposed an upper term sentence based upon judicial factfinding by a preponderance of the evidence, citing Apprendi v.

Case 3:07-cv-00130-W-JMA Document 19 Filed 09/24/07 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

2 07cv0130-W (JMA)

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and People v. Black, 35 Cal.4th

1238 (2005). (First Amended Petition at 6 and Appendix “A.”)

On July 5, 2007, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Petition (the “Motion”), which appears to contend that Petitioner

has not exhausted available state remedies regarding the five (5) 

grounds for relief raised in the original Petition, but does not

address the single ground raised in the First Amended Petition. 

[Doc. No. 18] The First Amended Petition was filed prior to the

Court’s Order Requiring Response to Petition [Doc. No. 14, filed

May 8, 2007), and the Court docket indicates that the First

Amended Petition was served on the office of Respondent’s

counsel. More than two months after the First Amended Petition

was filed, Respondent filed the Motion, and it fails to address

the First Amended Petition.

Accordingly, the undersigned magistrate judge finds and

recommends that the Motion should be DENIED as mooted by

Petitioner’s filing of the First Amended Petition.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable

Thomas J. Whelan, United States District Judge assigned to this

case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than October 12, 2007 any party

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on

all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be served and filed no later than October 26, 2007. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of

Case 3:07-cv-00130-W-JMA Document 19 Filed 09/24/07 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

3 07cv0130-W (JMA)

the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 24, 2007

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00130-W-JMA Document 19 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 3