Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02248/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02248-3/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

ANTHONY TURNER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-2248 DFL PAN P

vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 3, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Respondent and

petitioner have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Respondent argues that

petitioner’s fourth claim -- regarding his allegedly wrongful loss of credits -- should be dismissed

as unexhausted. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

Case 2:03-cv-02248-DFL-EFB Document 40 Filed 11/14/05 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

2

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. However, the court agrees with respondent that petitioner’s fourth claim was not

exhausted. Petitioner has not raised this claim in any of his state petitions that have been ruled

on by the California Supreme Court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 3, 2005, are adopted in part as

follows: 

a. The court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss

petitioner’s seventh claim;

b. The court refers the case back to the magistrate judge to determine

whether the plaintiff wants to amend his petition to omit his fourth claim or stay the case pending

exhaustion of that claim;

2. Respondent’s March 14, 2005, motion to dismiss is granted in part, claim

seven is dismissed without prejudice, and the case is referred back to the magistrate as stated

above. 

DATED: 11/11/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02248-DFL-EFB Document 40 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2