Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00962/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00962-2/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

1

The motion was filed in this Court on December 1, 2005; however, it was dated November 25, 2005. In Houston

v. Lack, the Court held that a pro se habeas petitioner's notice of appeal is deemed filed on the date of its submission to prison

authorities for mailing, as opposed to the date of its receipt by the court clerk. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct.

2379, 2385 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has applied the rule to assess the timeliness of federal habeas filings under the AEDPA

limitations period. Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222, (9th Cir. 2001), citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108

S.Ct. 2379, 2385 (1988). Given that similar time concerns are at issue here, the Court, pursuant to the mailbox rule, will

consider the motion as filed on November 25, 2005, the date Petitioner presumably handed his motion to prison authorities

for mailing.

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL STEVENSON, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DERRALL G. ADAMS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-0962 REC LJO HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW PETITION

[Doc. #13]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 27, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. On

September 6, 2005, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to file a response to the petition. 

Following an unsuccessful attempt to stay the petition, on November 25, 2005,1 Petitioner filed a

motion to withdraw the petition so he could return to state court to exhaust additional claims. On

Case 1:05-cv-00962-REC-LJO Document 16 Filed 12/15/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

December 1, 2005, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "an action may be

dismissed by the [petitioner] without order of court [] by filing a notice of dismissal at any time

before service by the adverse party of an answer . . . ." Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent

with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to petitions filed under these rules."

In this case, Petitioner filed his motion to withdraw the petition before Respondent filed his

answer. Therefore, under Rule 41(a)(1), the petition must be dismissed.

The Court expresses no opinion with respect to the timeliness of the instant petition or any

future petition. Nevertheless, Petitioner is forewarned that there is a one-year statute of limitations

period governing the filing of federal habeas petitions which commences upon the conclusion of

direct review. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The statute may be tolled for the time “during which a properly

filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent

judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(2). However, the statute will not be tolled for

the time during which a state post-conviction petition is pending that the state court rejects as

untimely, because an untimely state petition is not considered “properly filed” within the meaning of

the limitations period. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, __ U.S. __, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1812 (2005). In addition,

the statute is not tolled for the time a habeas petition is pending in federal court. Duncan v. Walker,

121 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2001).

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s motion to withdraw his

petition be GRANTED. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Robert E. Coyle, United

States 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

Case 1:05-cv-00962-REC-LJO Document 16 Filed 12/15/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 3

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: December 15, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00962-REC-LJO Document 16 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 3