Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01252-6/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

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner filed his petition on July 29, 2011. (Doc. 1). The petition contained the following 

four grounds for relief: (1) The admission of prior instances of misconduct at trial violated Petitioner’s 

right to due process; (2) the jury instruction regarding how the jury is to consider a common plan or 

scheme violated Petitioner’s right to a fair trial; (3) instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 207 was 

error; and (4) the conviction was obtained with the use of coerced confessions in violation of the 

federal constitution. (Doc. 1). Because only two of the four grounds for relief in the original petition

(i.e., grounds one and two), were exhausted in state court, Petitioner filed a motion to stay proceedings 

while he exhausted the unexhausted claims. (Doc. 3). On September 30, 2011, the Court granted 

MARCUS WHITAKER,

 Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN VIRGA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS 

(Doc. 46)

Case 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT Document 47 Filed 02/18/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Petitioner’s motion, stayed the proceedings pending exhaustion, and directed the Clerk of the Court to 

administratively close the case. (Doc. 9). 

Subsequently, apparently, Petitioner exhausted two claims for ineffective assistance of counsel 

not presented in the original petition and then sought to amend the petition to include those new 

claims. On November 9, 2012, Petitioner filed a first amended petition containing the new claims, but 

omitting any of the claims in the original petition. (Doc. 23). The Court ordered Respondent to file a 

response, without understanding that, through an apparent miscommunication, Petitioner wished to

only add the new claims to those in the original petition, not to proceed only on those new claims. 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the new claims as untimely on March 26, 2013. (Doc. 33). 

The Court, recognizing that the new claims were clearly untimely and that, as a result of the 

ongoing miscommunication, Petitioner had unintentionally forfeited his exhausted claims in the 

original petition, issued an order on August 16, 2013, withdrawing the order to respond to the first 

amended petition, disregarding the motion to dismiss, and ordering Petitioner to file a motion to 

withdraw the unexhausted claims from the original petition in order to proceed on the original 

petition’s exhausted claims. (Doc. 43). After several extensions of time, Petitioner, on October 17, 

2013, filed the instant motion to withdraw his unexhausted claims. (Doc. 46). 

 ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner’s motion to withdraw unexhausted grounds three and four in the original petition 

(Doc. 46), is GRANTED.

2. The case will proceed on the exhausted grounds one and two in the original petition.

3. The Court will order a response to those claims in the original petition by separate order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT Document 47 Filed 02/18/14 Page 2 of 2