Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05781/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05781-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHINEHAS LAMONT PARKER, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5783 OWW SMS HC

Petitioner, ORDER RETURNING AMENDED 

PETITION LODGED JUNE 10, 2005

vs. TO PETITIONER 

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, 

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 on May 24, 2004, in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. By order of June 1, 2004, the action was transferred

to the Fresno Division. On October 27, 2004, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the

petition. 

On December 27, 2004, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the instant

petition was a “mixed” petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. On March 9, 2005,

the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending the following: 1) Respondent’s motion

to dismiss be granted; 2) deny Petitioner’s request to hold the action in abeyance pending exhaustion

without prejudice, and 3) grant Petitioner leave to withdraw the unexhausted claims and request to hold

the action in abeyance or delete the unexhausted claims. (Court Doc. 18.)

Case 1:04-cv-05781-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 07/11/05 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

27

28

2

Petitioner filed objections on April 19, 2005. On April 27, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice to the

Court that the unexhausted claims had now been exhausted by the California Supreme Court. Therefore,

on May 9, 2005, the Court directed Respondent to file a response addressing whether the unexhausted

claims had been exhausted. On May 25, 2005, Respondent filed a response indicating that the

unexhausted claims had been exhausted by the California Supreme Court. (Court Doc. 22.)

Because the unexhausted claims have been exhausted, on June 22, 2005, the Court vacated the

Findings and Recommendations and denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as a “mixed”

petition. (Court Doc. 24.) 

On June 10, 2005, Petitioner submitted an amended petition to the Court which was lodged. It

appears the amended petition was merely submitted to demonstrate that Petitioner had exhausted the

unexhausted claims. Because the Court has found that the claims are exhausted, the amended petition

is unnecessary and will be returned to Petitioner. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the amended petition, lodged June 10,

2005, shall be returned to Petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05781-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2