Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01479/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01479-4/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

COLLIE GEORGE DOWNER, No. CIV S-06-1479-DFL-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

M. CRAMER, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to

dismiss (Doc. 16) filed October 3, 2006. Petitioner has not filed a response. 

In his motion to dismiss, respondent contends that the petition is mixed in that it

contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Specifically, of the six claims raised in the

petition, three of them are unexhausted. Respondent concedes that Claims I, III, and VI are

exhausted. Respondent contends, however, that Claims II, IV, and V are unexhausted. 

According to the petition, these claims are:

Claim II – “Judge Moscone was unduly prejudiced by Elizabeth’s father to deny

petitioner his right to a fair trial by a letter sent to the judge as part of his plan to

sue petitioner for $12,000,000.00.”

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 17 Filed 11/17/06 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 IV – “The prosecutor committed constitutional error by eliciting, failing to

correct & arguing known false testimony & referring to evidence to support this

perjury which had been excluded by the court.”

Claim V – “Petitioner was denied his right to present a defense and his right to

present all evidence; cross-examination & confrontation due to the trial court’s

refusal to conduct an in camera review of Elizabeth’s diary in which she wrote

about the alleged assault.”

A review of petitioner’s state court filings, which respondent has submitted as exhibits to his

motion, reveal that these claims were not presented to the state court. Claims II and IV were not

raised at all. As to Claim V, while petitioner argued to the state court that the trial court erred by

refusing to allow the defense to present evidence of the victim’s psychological history, petitioner

did not raise any argument regarding the victim’s diaries. 

Because respondent is correct that the petition contains unexhausted claims, the

motion to dismiss should be granted. As respondent suggests in his motion, however, petitioner

should be given an opportunity to: (1) file an amended petition which deletes the unexhausted

claims and presents only the exhausted claims; or (2) accept dismissal of the entire petition,

including the exhausted claims, without prejudice to re-filing the petition once all the claims

have been exhausted in state court. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge to provide petitioner

the options outlined above. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 17 Filed 11/17/06 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

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 16, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 17 Filed 11/17/06 Page 3 of 3