Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01809/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01809-4/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

ANDRE RIDER, No. CIV S-04-1809-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

S. KERNAN,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On February 7, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Petitioner has

not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. The findings and

recommendations will, therefore, be adopted in full. Petitioner’s request for an order staying the

instant proceedings and holding consideration of his claims in abeyance pending exhaustion of

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 21 Filed 03/22/06 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

state remedies (“stay-and-abeyance order”) will be denied.

The court now addresses respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9), filed on July

21, 2005. Respondent correctly notes that the petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted

claims and must be dismissed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982). Given that the

court agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendation that petitioner is not entitled to a stayand-abeyance order, the court also agrees that the instant petition must be dismissed. 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss will, therefore, be granted.

This dismissal, however, will be with leave to file an amended petition which

alleges only exhausted claims. Petitioner is cautioned that, if he does not file an amended

petition within the time provided herein which contains only exhausted claims, the entire petition

will be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies. See id.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 7, 2006, are adopted in

full;

2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay-and-abeyance order is denied;

3. This action proceeds on the petition filed on August 30, 2004, which is a

“mixed” petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims; and

4. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is granted;

5. The petition filed on August 30, 2004, is dismissed with leave to file an

amended petitioner which alleges only exhausted claims; and

6. Petitioner shall file an amended petition within 30 days of the date of

service of this order.

Dated: March 21, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 21 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2