Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00598/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00598-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD PENNEWELL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0598 DFL EFB P

vs.

TOM CAREY, Warden, ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C.§ 2254. On May

10, 2006, respondent filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground petitioner had not exhausted

available state remedies. On September 29, 2006, the court found that petitioner failed to

exhaust available state remedies, and recommended that respondent’s motion be granted and that

this action be dismissed without prejudice. On November 17, 2006, petitioner filed objections.

The court has reviewed the objections and, as explained below, finds that the September

29, 2006, findings and recommendations should be vacated.

Petitioner asserts that the California Supreme Court has issued a final decision on the

claims contained in his March 22, 2006, petition. At the time this court recommended dismissal,

petitioner’s claims were pending in the California Supreme Court, as evidenced by the state

court petition included as respondent’s Exhibit A. Petitioner has submitted an October 11, 2006, 

Case 2:06-cv-00598-JKS-EFB Document 21 Filed 12/01/06 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

2

California Supreme Court order denying habeas relief which bears the same case number as the

petition submitted as respondent’s Exhibit A to the motion to dismiss. Based on this, the court

finds that the California Supreme Court has ruled on petitioner’s claims and they now are

exhausted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the September 29, 2006, findings and

recommendations are vacated; and

Further, It is RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s May 10, 2006, motion to dismiss be denied; and

2. Respondent be given 60 days from the date of this order to file and serve an answer to

petitioner’s application. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. The answer shall be

accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the

issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 

3. Petitioner be given 30 days after service of the answer to file a reply, if any. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 30, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00598-JKS-EFB Document 21 Filed 12/01/06 Page 2 of 2