Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05455/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05455-2/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE LAMONT REED, SR.,

Petitioner,

 v.

MARTIN BITER, Warden, 

Respondent.

 /

No. C 13-5455 TEH (PR)

ORDER REOPENING ACTION; SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 22,

2014, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure

to exhaust state remedies. On November 13, 2014, the Court denied

Petitioner’s motion for a stay and gave Petitioner an opportunity to

decide whether he wanted to dismiss the unexhausted claims and go

forward with only the exhausted one or dismiss the entire action and

return to state court to exhaust all his claims before filing a new

federal petition. The Court warned Petitioner that he must make his

election by December 12, 2014, or face dismissal of the entire

action. Per Petitioner’s request, the deadline was later extended

to January 9, 2015.

 On January 26, 2015, after not receiving any further

Case 3:13-cv-05455-TEH Document 23 Filed 02/03/15 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

communication from Petitioner, the Court dismissed the action

without prejudice. On the same date, Petitioner filed his election,

in which he opted to dismiss the unexhausted claims and go forward

with only the exhausted one.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. The action is REOPENED, and the Clerk is directed to

amend the docket accordingly. The judgment (Docket No. 21) and the

order of dismissal (Docket No. 20) are VACATED.

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Order, an

Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

not be granted as to the one claim found to be both cognizable and

exhausted as discussed in the Court’s October 22, 2014 Order. 

Respondent shall file with the Answer and serve on Petitioner a copy

of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed

previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues

presented by the Petition. 

3. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he

shall do so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on

Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 02/02/2015 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05455-TEH Document 23 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 2