Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01219/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01219-1/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

CHANDRA KISHOR, No. CIV S-03-1219-LKK-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 25, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

that respondents’ motion to dismiss be granted and that the petition be dismissed. Specifically,

the Magistrate Judge concluded:

After reviewing the record in this action, the court finds that

petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies as to his claim of

entrapment. Accordingly, the petition is a mixed petition containing both

exhausted and unexhausted claims and must be dismissed.

The Magistrate Judge recommended that: (1) petitioner be granted leave to file an amended

petition raising only exhausted claims; (2) petitioner should file a state petition on the entrapment

Case 2:03-cv-01219-LKK -CMK Document 30 Filed 10/30/06 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

claim within 30 days after filing an amended federal petition; and (3) that this action be stayed

and proceedings held in abeyance pending resolution of the new state petition. The Magistrate

Judge also recommended that, once state court proceedings were completed, petitioner should

file an amended petition “to present a fully exhausted petition to the District Court.” The

findings and recommendations cautioned that, if petitioner did not comply, his case could be

dismissed. 

On April 8, 2005 – before the findings and recommendations had been adopted –

petitioner filed a document entitled “Delete & Stay Unexhausted Claim & Amended Petition.” 

In this document, petitioner expressed his agreement with the March 25, 2005, findings and

recommendations. On June 7, 2005 – also before the findings and recommendations had been

adopted – respondents filed a statement of non-opposition to petitioner deleting the unexhausted

claim and holding proceedings on the remaining exhausted claims in abeyance. 

On September 16, 2005, the court issued an order adopting the March 25, 2005,

findings and recommendations. The order dismissed the petition without prejudice. Judgment

was entered accordingly on that same day. Since judgment was entered, petitioner has presented

his entrapment claim to the state courts. Specifically, on June 26, 2006, petitioner filed a

document attaching: (1) an order from the Sacramento County Superior Court issued on June 14,

2005, denying petitioner’s entrapment claim both on state procedural grounds and on the merits;

(2) an order from the California Court of Appeal issued on August 11, 2005, denying the

entrapment claim without comment or citation; and (3) an order from the California Supreme

Court issued on June 14, 2006, denying the entrapment claim with citations to In re Clark, 5

Cal.4th 750 (1993), and In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770, 780 (1998). Attached to petitioner’s June

26, 2006, filing is an amended federal petition as to all claims, including the now-exhausted

entrapment claim. 

In light of the foregoing procedural history, it appears that the September 16,

2005, judgment was entered in error. Specifically, while the court adopted the Magistrate

Case 2:03-cv-01219-LKK -CMK Document 30 Filed 10/30/06 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

Judge’s findings and recommendations in full, petitioner was not specifically granted leave to file

an amended petition and this action was not stayed. Rather, the court dismissed the petition

without prejudice. Because the court originally envisioned a stay-and-abeyance procedure for

this case which would preserve petitioner’s original filing date, and because petitioner has now

exhausted all his claims and presented this court with an amended petition, the court will vacate

the September 16, 2005, order and judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). 

This action will now proceed on the amended petition attached to petitioner’s July 26, 2006,

filing, which the Clerk of the Court will be directed to file separately.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The September 16, 2005, order and judgment are vacated:

2. The Magistrate Judge’s March 25, 2005, findings and recommendations

are adopted;

3. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is granted;

4. The amended petition (Doc. 8), filed on October 10, 2003, and as further

amended on April 30, 2004 (Doc. 17) is dismissed;

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to separate and file the amended petition

attached to petitioner’s July 26, 2006, submission (Doc. 27);

6. Respondents are directed to file an answer to petitioner’s amended petition

within 30 days from the date of service of this order; and

7. Petitioner’s traverse or reply shall be filed and served within 30 days of

service of respondents’ answer.

DATED: October 30, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01219-LKK -CMK Document 30 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 3