Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00521/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00521-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE GUSTER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0521 FCD GGH P

vs.

THE SUPREME COURT OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.

 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for “a writ

of mandate,” asking this court to direct the California Supreme Court to rule on his petition for

writ of habeas corpus, apparently filed on October 18, 2005, in the state supreme court. 

Petitioner has not paid a filing fee for this filing.

Petitioner states that while the state supreme court has no deadlines for rendering

decisions, rulings must be rendered as soon as possible and that his petition for writ of habeas

corpus has been before the state’s high court for a year and five months. Petition, p. 1. He avers

that he submitted an inquiry to the state supreme court seeking a status update on October 14,

2006, to which he received no reply and “an informal letter for injunction [sic] relief” on

November 14, 2006, to which he also received no response. Id. 

Case 2:07-cv-00521-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/06/07 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

2

Petitioner contends that the state supreme court’s delay in ruling upon his petition

does not allow him to pursue a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Id. Petitioner

asks this court to compel the state supreme court to render a decision on petitioner’s application

before that court. Petition, p. 2. 

Federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court. 

Demos v. United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9 Cir. th

1991), citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Second, while there is a one-year statute of limitations

applicable to the filing of petitions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in federal court under the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) provides that

the time during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral

review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward

any period of limitation. Therefore, assuming that petitioner has a properly filed application

before the state supreme court, the period during which it remains pending would generally be

tolled. Third, although petitioner indicates that the state supreme court did deny his petition for

review on May 12, 2004 (petition, p. 4), petitioner has not filed a federal habeas petition, setting

forth those issues which have presumably been exhausted during the direct appeal process as well

as those that remain unexhausted on state collateral review. Petitioner could have filed a mixed

petition and then sought a stay, but he has failed to do so. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269,

125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005). Petitioner’s application for a writ of mandate should be dismissed.

Should the state court not issue a decision in the near future, petitioner can file a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court and claim that he has exhausted his state

remedies by virtue of giving the state courts an opportunity to rule on his petition. The

undersigned is not representing what the outcome of such a claim would be were it to be made. 

Such a ruling would depend on the state of the record, and petitioner’s custodian would have the

opportunity to oppose the prosecution of any federal petition.

\\\\\

Case 2:07-cv-00521-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/06/07 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for

a writ of mandate be dismissed and this case be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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).

DATED: 4/6/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

gust0521.fr

Case 2:07-cv-00521-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/06/07 Page 3 of 3