Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02399/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02399-1/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

JOHN ANTHONY VELLA, No. CIV-S-04-2399 MCE/KJM P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, ET AL., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

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 May 4, 2005, 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 twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02399-MCE -KJM Document 9 Filed 06/02/05 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

 In his objections, petitioner asks that the court stay this matter until petitioner exhausts 1

state court remedies with respect to his claims. However, under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509

(1982), a habeas application containing any unexhausted claims must be dismissed. When the

court dismisses a habeas application containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, the

court can grant the petitioner leave to file an amended application containing only exhausted

claims. Then, the court can proceed on the exhausted claims, or possibly stay the exhausted

claims pending further exhaustion. However, because all of petitioner’s claims are unexhausted,

the Supreme Court, through Rose, demands that this entire action be dismissed.

2

Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.1

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

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 4, 2005, are

adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is

dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

DATED: June 2, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02399-MCE -KJM Document 9 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2