Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06409/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06409-5/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 The Court found that part of Ground One and Ground Three were unexhausted. (Court Doc. 10.) 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONROE WALTER BURNS, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6409 OWW DLB HC

Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PETITIONER’S REQUEST

vs. TO WITHDRAW PETITION

A.P. KANE, Warden, [Doc. 21]

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 18, 2004. 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as a “mixed” petition on December 20, 2004. On

January 14, 2005, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that

Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted. On February 11, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the 1

Findings and Recommendations requesting that the Court hold the petition in abeyance while he

exhausted the unexhausted claims at the state court level. On April 25, 2005, the Court issued an

order to show cause why the stay should be granted. Petitioner filed a response on May 26, 2005,

and Respondent filed an opposition on July 25, 2005. On July 27, 2005, the Court issued Findings

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 22 Filed 10/13/05 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

27

28

2

and Recommendations recommending that Petitioner’s request for a stay be denied. Petitioner filed

objections on August 25, 2005. The Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full on

September 2, 2005, and Petitioner’s request for a stay was denied. On September 15, 2005, the

Court issued an order directing Petitioner to inform the Court of his intent to either withdraw the

entire petition or dismiss the unexhausted claims only. On September 26, 2005, Petitioner filed a

request to withdraw the entire petition. 

The Court can dismiss the entire petition, as Petitioner currently requests, so that Petitioner

can return to the state court to exhaust the remainder of his claims before filing a new federal

petition. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982); Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9 Cir. th

1988). This dismissal will not bar Petitioner from returning to federal court after exhausting

available state remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9 Cir. 1995). th

However, this means that Petitioner will be subject to the one-year statute of limitations imposed by

Title 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d). In most cases, the one year period starts to run on the date the

California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s direct review. See id. In this case, the California

Supreme Court denied review on November 12, 2003. (See Findings and Recommendations of

January 14, 2005, Court Doc. 10, at p. 2.) Thus, direct review would conclude on February 10, 2004,

when the ninety (90) day period for seeking review in the United States Supreme Court expired.

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887 (1983); Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9 Cir.1999); th

Smith v. Bowersox, 159 F.3d 345, 347 (8 Cir.1998). The limitations expired one year later on th

February 9, 2005. The instant petition was timely filed; however, any future filing in federal court

would violate the limitations period. Although the limitations period tolls while a properly filed

request for collateral review is pending in state court, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), it does not toll for the

time an application is pending in federal court. Duncan v. Walker, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 531 U.S. 991

(2001). 

Based on Petitioner’s expressed intention to dismiss the entire petition, the Court

recommends that Petitioner’s request to withdraw the petition be GRANTED, and the petition for

writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED, without prejudice. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States District

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 22 Filed 10/13/05 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

27

28

3

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court

and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within

ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will

then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 12, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 22 Filed 10/13/05 Page 3 of 3