Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02092/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02092-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY DUN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2092 DFL GGH P

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, ORDER &

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 / 

Petitioner, proceeding with appointed counsel, has moved for a stay and abeyance

of a first amended petition, lodged on February 21, 2006. Petitioner was charged with offenses

against two victims and was convicted of first degree murder, first degree robbery, and rape in

March 1977 in San Joaquin County Superior Court. Amended Petition (AP), p. 1. Petitioner

was ultimately sentenced (after an appeal and remand) to an indeterminate life term on the

murder count with sentences on the rape and robbery counts stayed pending completion of the

murder sentence in February, 1981. AP, p.2. 

In the original petition, filed on October 19, 2005, petitioner challenges his March

2002 parole suitability hearing (his 11 parole hearing), for which counsel avers petitioner’s state th

court remedies have been exhausted. Petition, p. 5. Petitioner, however, in the amended

petition, seeks to incorporate his challenge to the denial of parole at his October 19, 2005 

Case 2:05-cv-02092-WBS-CHS Document 9 Filed 04/20/06 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

2

suitability hearing, which denial occurred the same day as petitioner filed his original petition. 

Stay Request, p. 3. The claims as to the October 2005 hearing are as yet unexhausted. Petitioner

avers that the records of both the 2002 and 2005 hearings demonstrate that the decisionmaking

process at both hearings are interrelated. Respondent does not oppose a stay and abeyance for

the purpose of exhausting remedies as to the challenges to the 2005 hearing, according to

petitioner. Stay Request, p. 1. 

As respondent posits no objection to incorporating the challenges to the two

parole denials or to a stay and abeyance of this matter and no question of good cause appears to

be implicated as to not yet having exhausted with respect to the 2005 parole suitability hearing,

the court will recommend that the matter be stayed pending exhaustion of the claims as to the

2005 denial. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005). However, petitioner

should be required to notify the court within thirty days of a decision by the state supreme court

as to the claims at issue so that the stay may be lifted and this matter proceed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Clerk of the Court enter the amended petition,

lodged on February 21, 2006, into the court’s docket as filed nunc pro tunc of February 21, 2006. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s unopposed motion for a stay and abeyance of the amended

petition, filed February 21, 2006, be granted and this matter be stayed pending exhaustion of

petitioner’s claims with respect to the parole suitability hearing denial; and

2. Petitioner be directed to file a notice to this court of exhaustion of his state

court remedies as to his unexhausted claims within thirty days of the filing of the decision by the

state supreme court.

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 ten 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.” Any reply to the objections

Case 2:05-cv-02092-WBS-CHS Document 9 Filed 04/20/06 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

3

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: 4/20/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

dun2092.ofr

Case 2:05-cv-02092-WBS-CHS Document 9 Filed 04/20/06 Page 3 of 3