Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01324/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01324-3/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

- 1 - 09cv1324

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL GORDON WHITMORE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09 CV 1324 MMA (MDD)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 51]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS;

[Doc. No. 52]

DENYING MOTION TO INCLUDE

PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED

GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

[Doc. No. 46]

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Warden,

Respondent.

On May 26, 2009, Petitioner Paul Gordon Whitmore, a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

[Doc. No. 1.] On July 14, 2009, the Court notified Petitioner that some of his claims may be

subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust his state remedies. [Doc. No. 12.] 

On November 2, 2009, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Revisit Prima Facie, Amend Petition

and Enlarge Time Limit for Traverse.” [Doc. No. 23.] Therein, Petitioner requested, inter alia,

the Court to reconsider whether claims 5 and 6 are exhausted. [Id. at p.3.] Petitioner indicated

that if the Court still considers claims 5 and 6 unexhausted, he will ask the Court to dismiss these

Case 3:09-cv-01324-MMA-MDD Document 53 Filed 08/04/11 Page 1 of 4
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 - 09cv1324

claims without prejudice. [Id.] On November 4, 2009, the Court issued an order indicating it

received Petitioner’s motion to “revisit prima facie” the same day the Court issued a detailed

Notice regarding Petitioner’s likely failure to exhaust claims 4, 5 and 6. [Doc. No. 26, p.2.] The

Court indicated that the Notice set forth Petitioner’s options as to the unexhausted claims, and

directed Petitioner to review the Notice and respond accordingly. [Id.]

Specifically, the Court’s November 3, 2009 Notice to Petitioner [Doc. No. 21] indicated

that three of his claims—numbers 4, 5 and 6—were not exhausted. The Court advised Petitioner

he had four options: (1) Petitioner could file additional papers with the Court demonstrating the

claims had been exhausted; (2) Petitioner could voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and

return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims; (3) Petitioner could formally abandon his

unexhausted claims and proceed only on those properly exhausted; or (4) Petitioner could file a

motion to stay his federal petition while he returned to state court to exhaust claims 4, 5 and 6. 

[Doc. No. 21, p.2-4.] With respect to the third option, the Court cautioned Petitioner that if he

abandons the unexhausted claims, he may lose the ability to ever raise them in federal court. The

Court further advised Petitioner, that if he chose the fourth option, Petitioner could proceed one of

two ways. First, Petitioner could ask the Court to stay his mixed petition while he returned to state

court to exhaust claims 4, 5 and 6, or he could voluntarily withdraw his unexhausted claims and

request the Court to stay his fully-exhausted petition while he returns to state court to exhaust, and

then seek permission to amend his petition to include the newly exhausted claims after exhaustion

is complete. 

On December 14, 2009, Petitioner responded to the Court’s Notice by filing a “Motion to

Dismiss Claim Nos. 5 and 6 and to Ask for Clarification as to Claim No. 4.” [Doc. No. 31.] In his

motion, Petitioner asked the Court to “dismiss and abandon his claims numbers [sic] 5 and 6.” [Id.

at p.1.] Petitioner stated he “considered each of the options the Court noted in the Notice

Regarding Possible Dismissal of Petition for Failure to Exhaust State Court Remedies. Petitioner

understands the potential consequences of this motion. Petitioner requests a dismissal without

prejudice.” [Id. a p.2.] On December 21, 2009, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to dismiss

unexhausted claims 5 and 6. [Doc. No. 32.] 

Case 3:09-cv-01324-MMA-MDD Document 53 Filed 08/04/11 Page 2 of 4
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 - 09cv1324

On January 19, 2010, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Stay and Abeyance Regarding Grounds

4.” [Doc. No. 34.] The Court granted Petitioner’s motion to stay his federal action while he

proceeded in state court to exhaust claim 4. [Doc. No. 35.] On September 1, 2010, Petitioner filed

the pending motion to include his previously abandoned claims 5 and 6 in his original petition. 

[Doc. No. 46.] Petitioner asserts the Court dismissed these claims without prejudice, and argues

that including them now does not constitute a successive petition because the Court did not rule on

the merits of the claims. [Id.] Respondent opposed Petitioner’s motion on October 1, 2010. [Doc.

No. 47.] Petitioner’s motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for

preparation of a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule

72.1(d). On April 29, 2011, this case was transferred to United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell

D. Dembin. [Doc. No. 50.]

Judge Dembin issued a well-reasoned and thorough Report recommending that Petitioner’s

motion to include previously abandoned claims 5 and 6 be denied. [Doc. No. 51.] Petitioner

timely filed objections, challenging the findings and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and

Recommendation. [Doc. No. 52.] Respondent did not file an objection to the Report, nor a

response to Petitioner’s objections.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Here, Petitioner objects to the

entirety of the Report. [Doc. No. 52.] Primarily, Petitioner asserts his entire petition was stayed

while he exhausted his state court remedies, and Judge Dembin failed to view the grounds raised

in claims 5 and 6 as sentencing errors which may be corrected at any time. [Id.] The Court has

considered the merits of each of Petitioner’s objections. With respect to Petitioner’s objections to

the findings of fact detailed in the Report, the Court overrules the objections, as they are amply

supported by the record. While petitioner is correct that the entire petition was stayed while he

exhausted his claims in state court, by the time the Court entered the stay on February 2, 2010, the

Court had already granted Petitioner’s motion to dismiss claims 5 and 6 on December 21, 2009. 

Case 3:09-cv-01324-MMA-MDD Document 53 Filed 08/04/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 09cv1324

Petitioner voluntarily chose to abandon claims 5 and 6, expressly acknowledging he understood

the consequences of his decision. [Doc. No. 31.] Petitioner has not identified any ground for the

Court to allow him to amend his petition to include these previously abandoned and time-barred

claims. Petitioner’s objections to the conclusions of law are similarly without merit, and are

therefore, overruled. Judge Dembin identified the correct legal standards, applied each standard

correctly, considered relevant case law, and reached sound conclusions that this Court has no

reason to reject. 

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the files and records herein, the

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Petitioner’s motion to reinstate previously abandoned claims 5 and 6. [Doc. No. 46.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 4, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01324-MMA-MDD Document 53 Filed 08/04/11 Page 4 of 4