Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02008/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02008-0/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 08cv2008 BTM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DANIEL CUERO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08cv2008 BTM (WMc)

ORDER RE: REPORT AND

v. RECOMMENDATION

DERRAL G. ADAMS,

Respondent.

Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On April 6, 2009, Petitioner

filed a “Motion to Suppress New Evidence for a ‘Writ Review’ and Sentence Modification”

(Doc. 12). In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed on August 19, 2009, Magistrate

Judge McCurine construed Petitioner’s motion as seeking to add a claim for entrapment.

The Magistrate Judge indicated that such a claim may be unexhausted and provided

Petitioner with several options as to how to proceed. On September 17, 2009, the Petitioner

submitted a reply to the R&R, stating that “Petitioner will choose the following option: iii) Third

option: Formally abandon unexhausted claim(s); So that the one-year statute of limitations

will be with merits, so it is.” This reply was filed nunc pro tunc to September 14, 2009. The

Court construes this reply as an intention to abandon the entrapment claim in this habeas

proceeding.

Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

(1) Since in response to the R&R the Petitioner has made an election to abandon any

entrapment claim, no further action is required as to that R&R (Doc. 18);

Case 3:08-cv-02008-BTM-WMC Document 31 Filed 12/07/09 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 08cv2008 BTM (WMc)

(2) Petitioner’s “Motion to Suppress Evidence for a ‘Writ of Review’ and Sentence

Modification” (Doc. 12) is DENIED without prejudice.

(3) Respondent’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. Respondent

shall file a response to the Petition on or before January 11, 2010. Any further requests for

extensions shall be made to the Magistrate Judge.

(4) This matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge to prepare a Report and

Recommendation on the current Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 7, 2009

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02008-BTM-WMC Document 31 Filed 12/07/09 Page 2 of 2