Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01457/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01457-2/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOAQUIN MURRIETTA

MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

CAPT. PENA,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.13-1457-BTM(WVG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE DISMISSAL OF PETITION

On August 19, 2013, Petitioner Joaquin Murrietta

Martinez (“Petitioner”) filed a First Amended Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (“FAP”). On December 27, 2013,

Respondent Capt. Pena (“Respondent”) filed an Answer to

the FAP and lodged with the Court the state court record

pertaining to Petitioner’s conviction. The Answer indicated that Petitioner failed to exhaust claim nos. 3 and

4 in his FAP. The Court reviewed the state court record

and found that Respondent was correct.

On January 2, 2014, this Court issued a Notice

Regarding Possible Dismissal of Petition For Failure To

Exhaust State Court Remedies (“Notice”). In the Notice,

1 13CV1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 33 Filed 05/20/14 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

27

28

the Court found that Petitioner failed to exhaust his

state court remedies pertaining to all of the claims in

his Petition. Therefore, the Court gave Petitioner four

options:

(1) file a supplemental memorandum stating how all of

his claims have been exhausted in state court; or

(2) dismiss his petition in order to exhaust all state

court remedies; or

(3) formally and permanently abandon all unexhausted

claims; or

(4) file a motion to stay the federal proceedings.

Petitioner was ordered to exercise one of these

options on or before February 3, 2014. At Petitioner’s

request, the February 3, 2014 date was extended to March

3, 2014. At Petitioner’s request, the March 3, 2014 date

was extended to April 3, 2014. At Petitioner’s request,

the April 3, 2014 date was extended to May 9, 2014.

The Court indicated in its January 2, 2014 Notice

that if Petitioner failed to exercise one of the four

options noted above, by February 3, 2014 (later extended

to May 9, 2014), then it would still be faced with a

petition that contains unexhausted claims and would

therefore have to recommend dismissal of Petitioner’s

case.

As of the date of this Report and Recommendation,

the Court has not received a written response from Petitioner indicating which option he chooses. Accordingly,

this Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s First Amended

2 13CV1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 33 Filed 05/20/14 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

27

28

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED without

prejudice to Petitioner’s refiling in the future a petition which contains only exhausted claims.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to this case,

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than June 20, 2014, any

party may file written objections with the court and serve

a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be served and filed no later than July 7,

2014. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 20, 2014

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

3 13CV1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 33 Filed 05/20/14 Page 3 of 3