Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00057/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00057-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR PUCHETA,

Petitioner,

v.

M. S. EVANS,

Respondent.

 /

1: 06 CV 00057 OWW WMW HC

ORDER GRANTING PETIT IONER

O P P O R TUNITY TO WI THDRAW

UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS AND PROCEED

WITH REMAINING EXHAUSTED CLAIMS 

Response due in ten days

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 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 Rule 72-302. Pending before the court is Respondent’s

motion to dismiss.

On January 16, 2008, the undersigned entered findings and recommendations to grant the

motion to dismiss, finding that the petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and

granting Petitioner thirty (30) days to file objections. Petitioner has not filed objections.

Pursuant to Ninth Circuit holdings, a petitioner should be given the option of withdrawing his

unexhausted claims and proceeding in federal court with those claims that are exhausted. Guizar v.

Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9 Cir. 1988), citing, Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 510, 520 (1982). th

Case 1:06-cv-00057-OWW -WMW Document 14 Filed 03/05/08 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

However, should Petitioner abandon his unexhausted claims, any later attempt to amend the petition

to include newly exhausted claims may be subject to an abuse of the writ challenge. See McCleskey

v. Zant, 111 S.Ct. 1454 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 455 U.S. 510, 520-521 (1982); see also,

Rule 9(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (failure to allege all available

grounds for relief in a single petition may be abuse of the writ). Should the Petitioner fail to

withdraw the unexhausted claims or withdraw the petition, the petition will be dismissed. Rose, 455

U.S. at 519; Guizar, 843 F.2d at 372. 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). However, Petitioner should bear in mind that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) sets out a critical

th

one-year limitations period within which a federal habeas petition may be filed. In most cases, the

one year period starts to run on the date the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s direct

review. See, id. 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), is 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). 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner is GRANTED ten (10) days from the date of service of this order to inform

the Court whether he seeks to withdraw the unexhausted claims and proceed with

those that are exhausted or withdraw the entire Petition and return to state court to

exhaust those claims that are unexhausted. The Court will delay ruling on the

pending motion to dismiss in order to allow Petitioner to consider his alternatives. If

Petitioner does not timely respond to this order, the entire petition will be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00057-OWW -WMW Document 14 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 2