Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00757/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00757-1/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

27

28

08cv757

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK McLEAN SAUNDERS,

Petitioner,

v.

VM ALMAGER, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv757-L(AJB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO STAY AND ABEY; AND (3)

NOTICE REGARDING POSSIBLE

DISMISSAL

Petitioner, Mark McLean Saunders, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). 

In his Petition, Petitioner conceded that claims three to six were unexhausted. On May 5,

2008, the court issued a Notice Regarding Possible Dismissal of Petition for Failure to Exhaust

State Court Remedies. On May 14, 2008, Petitioner timely exercised one of the options

provided in the court’s notice and filed a motion to stay and abey. Respondent opposed the

motion. On August 13, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,

recommending to deny Petitioner’s motion. Petitioner has not filed any objections.

/ / / / /

Case 3:08-cv-00757-L-AJB Document 10 Filed 10/20/08 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 08cv757

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” on a

dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties

for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The court shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived. 

Section 636(b)(1) does not require review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the district judge must

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(emphasis in the original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D.

Ariz. 2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review). 

In the absence of objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. For

the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s motion to stay and abey is

DENIED. 

In light of the denial of Petitioner’s stay and abey motion, to avoid the court dismissing

the Petition on its own accord, Petitioner must choose one of the following options:

First Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition

Petitioner may move to voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and return to state

court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Petitioner may then file a new federal petition

containing only exhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 520-21 (1982) (stating

that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may dismiss his petition to “return[] to state court to

exhaust his claims”). If Petitioner chooses this option, he must file a pleading with this court no

later than November 19, 2008. Respondent may file a reply no later than December 5, 2008.

Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be filed before expiration of the

one-year statute of limitations. Ordinarily, a petitioner has one year from the date when his

conviction became final to file his federal petition, unless he can show that statutory or equitable

“tolling” applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Filing a

/ / / / /

Case 3:08-cv-00757-L-AJB Document 10 Filed 10/20/08 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 08cv757

petition in federal court does not stop the statute of limitations from running. Id. at 181-82; Frye

v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1145-46 (9th Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Second Option: Formally Abandon Unexhausted Claims

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claims and proceed with his exhausted

ones. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21 (stating that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may

“resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims”). Petitioner may exercise this

option by filing an amended petition which contains only exhausted claims. If Petitioner

chooses this option, he must file a pleading with this court no later than November 19, 2008. 

Respondent may file a reply no later than December 5, 2008.

Petitioner is cautioned that once he abandons his unexhausted claims, he may lose the

ability to ever raise them in federal court. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 488 (2000)

(stating that a court's ruling on the merits of claims presented in a first § 2254 petition renders

any later petition successive); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (a)-(b). 

If Petitioner fails to timely exercise either of the above two options, the court may dismiss

his Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-00757-L-AJB Document 10 Filed 10/20/08 Page 3 of 3