Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00833/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00833-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JONATHAN WHITE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

DAVID RUNNELS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:05 CV 0833 LJO WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 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 Rule 72-302.

 On August 30, 2006, the court entered an order explaining to Petitioner that he

could not proceed on this mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted

claims. The court explained Petitioner’s options to him, and granted Petitioner thirty days

to inform the court how he wished to proceed. 

Case 1:05-cv-00833-LJO -WMW Document 17 Filed 03/02/07 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

On November 30, 2006, the court entered an order denying Petitioner’s motion,

filed September 15, 2006, to hold this case in abeyance while he exhausted his additional

claims in state court. Specifically, the court denied Petitioner’s request for a stay without

prejudice because the petition contained unexhausted claims. The court informed

Petitioner as follows:

However, Petitioner is advised that if he withdraws the unexhausted claims,

he may renew his request for stay. Once the petition contains only exhausted

claims, the court will be able to consider a request for stay. See Ford v. Hubbard,

2002 WL 31001146, *4-5, (9th Cir. 2002) In other words, Petitioner must first

withdraw his unexhausted claims, and then renew his request to stay the petition

pending exhaustion at the state level. Failure to withdraw the unexhausted claims

will result in the dismissal of this entire petition.

On December 21, 2006, Petitioner made a motion to “renew” his request for a stay. 

On January 3, 2007, the court entered an order denying Petitioner’s motion, holding in part

as follows:

Petitioner states in part, “Petitioner has ‘Withdrawn’ his unexhausted claims from

his June 20, 2005 Filed Habeas Corpus Petition.” He explains that he seeks a stay

in this action in order to exhaust his unexhausted claims and file a second amended

petition in this court. 

Contrary to what he claims in his motion, Petitioner has not withdrawn his

unexhausted claims. Petitioner, in fact, has filed nothing with this court since the

court entered its previous order on November 30, 2006. Petitioner’s petition

therefore still contains unexhausted claims and this court cannot stay the action. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to renew his request for a stay of this action is

HEREBY DENIED.

Petitioner has failed to withdraw his unexhausted claims, thus his petition for writ

of habeas corpus still contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. As previously

explained to Petitioner, such a petition must be dismissed. See, Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S.

509, 521-22, 102 S.Ct. at 1205. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this

petition be DISMISSED as a mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted

claims, and that the Clerk of the Court be instructed to enter judgment for Respondent and

to close this case.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

Case 1:05-cv-00833-LJO -WMW Document 17 Filed 03/02/07 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

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, 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 court will then review 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

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00833-LJO -WMW Document 17 Filed 03/02/07 Page 3 of 3