Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05773/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05773-2/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

GERALD L. TUCKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

STUART J. RYAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-5773-REC-TAG HC

ORDER VACATING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS (Doc. 28)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS

(Doc. 36)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On March 11, 2005, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and

Recommendation recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because

it contained claims that Petitioner had not fully exhausted in state court. (Doc. 28). On June 13,

2005, the Court issued an informational order (Doc. 35), apprising Petitioner of the United States

Supreme Court decision in Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), which authorizes the limited

use of a “stay and abey” procedure in cases where, as here, a petitioner had filed a “mixed”

habeas corpus petition and where petitioner has met certain criteria. Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1535. 

The Court’s order gave Petitioner thirty days in which to respond before the Court would refer

the Report and Recommendation to the District Judge assigned to the case. (Doc. 35). 

On June 24, 2005, in response to the Court’s informational order, Petitioner filed a

motion for leave to withdraw his unexhausted claims and proceed on his exhausted claims. 

Case 1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG Document 37 Filed 06/29/05 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

(Doc. 36). As grounds therefore, Petitioner asserts that because his direct appeal has produced a

re-sentencing hearing on a prior conviction used to enhance his sentence, he wishes to proceed

with the unexhausted claims after the unexhausted claims have been dismissed. (Id. at p. 2). 

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE appearing therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and

Recommendation issued March 11, 2005 (Doc. 28), is VACATED.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s motion

for leave to withdraw his unexhausted claims (Doc. 36), be GRANTED, and that those portions

of Grounds One and Four identified as unexhausted in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation of March 11, 2005 (Doc. 28), be deemed WITHDRAWN. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Senior United States District Judge

assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, 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 Report and Recommendation.” Replies

to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05773-LJO-TAG Document 37 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 2