Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00185/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00185-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE WYATT,

Petitioner,

v.

ANTHONY A. LAMARQUE,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-00185 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING

PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW

UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS, DENYING

MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT, AND

REFERRING ACTION BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. #23, #26, & #27]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 2, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED as the petition was a “mixed” petition containing both

exhausted and unexhausted claims. The Findings and Recommendation recommended, however,

that Petitioner be granted the opportunity to withdraw the unexhausted claims as an alternative to

suffering dismissal. On August 12 and September 7, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice to the Court

indicating that he wishes to withdraw the unexhausted claims from the petition and proceed with

the single exhausted claim. 

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 finds that the

Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00185-AWI -SMS Document 29 Filed 09/15/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 2, 2005, is ADOPTED;

2. Petitioner’s request to withdraw Grounds 2, 3, and 4, from the petition is

GRANTED; 

3. The unexhausted claims having been withdrawn, the Motion to Dismiss is

DENIED as moot; and

4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00185-AWI -SMS Document 29 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 2