Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01064/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01064-6/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN DOUGLAS BAXTER, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN R. RUNNELS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-01064 OWW LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #14]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 2, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Petitioner to show

cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner

requested and was granted an extension of time. However, Petitioner failed to file a response to the

Court’s order. Therefore, on March 17, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and

Recommendation that recommended the petition be DISMISSED for Petitioner’s failure to comply

with a court order. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Clerk of Court be

DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and

Case 1:05-cv-01064-OWW -LJO Document 17 Filed 07/17/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of

the order. 

On April 7, 2006, Petitioner responded to the Findings and Recommendation. Petitioner

states he has experienced difficulty in abiding by the time deadlines set by the Court due to

lockdowns and placement in administrative segregation. Petitioner requests that the Court “allow

[him] to recall [his] case without prejudice - so that [he] may file again when [he is] in a better

location in this prison . . . .” 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. In

addition, Petitioner requests that the case be dismissed. Petitioner is forewarned that the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) imposes a statute of limitations of

one year in which a petitioner must file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued March 17, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Petitioner’s request to dismiss the case is GRANTED; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01064-OWW -LJO Document 17 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 2