Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00490/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00490-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA LYNN CHAVEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

GLORIA HENRY, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-00490 REC DLB HC

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DIRECTING CLERK

OF COURT TO FILE AMENDED PETITION,

AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT RESPONSE TO AMENDED

PETITION

[Docs. 15, 17, 18] 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 6, 2005, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that

the petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. On November 17, 2005, the

Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss be

GRANTED. This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. On

the same date that the Findings and Recommendations was issued, Petitioner filed a motion to

amend the petition to delete the unexhausted claim, apparently in response to Respondent’s

motion to dismiss. (Court Doc. 17.) On this same date, Petitioner filed a motion for the Court to

accept the untimely amended petition. (Court Doc. 18.) 

In the Court’s Findings and Recommendations of November 17, 2005, the Court

informed Petitioner that she could move to withdraw the unexhausted claim. Since Petitioner has

Case 1:05-cv-00490-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 01/04/06 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

2

submitted an amended petition deleting the unexhausted claim - Ground Two of the original

petition, Petitioner’s motion to file the untimely petition is DISREGARDED as unnecessary. 

The Court will vacate the Findings and Recommendations, order the Clerk of Court to file the

amended petition, and direct Respondent to submit a response to the amended petition.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations of November 17, 2005, is VACATED;

2. The Clerk of Court shall file the amended petition, lodged November 17, 2005; 

3. Within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order, Respondent shall

submit a response to the amended petition in accordance with the Court’s

September 8, 2005, order; and

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date Respondent files the answer to the amended

petition, Petitioner may file a traverse.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 3, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00490-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 2