Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04670/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04670-3/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The second claim was dismissed previously because it is not cognizable. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS MELENDEZ,

Petitioner, 

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-4670 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED WITH EXHAUSTED

CLAIM; DISMISSING

UNEXHAUSTED CLAIM; TO SHOW

CAUSE

(Docket No. 13)

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Respondent’s motion to dismiss

the petition as mixed was granted, and petitioner was directed to elect whether to chose from

among three possible courses of action. He has filed a motion to elect to dismiss the

unexhausted claim, and proceed solely on the basis of the only exhausted claim in the petition,

claim number one. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion (docket number 13) is GRANTED, and the

unexhausted claim in the petition (claim number three) is DISMISSED.

1

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety days of the

date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on

the first claim in the petition. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a

copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

Case 3:08-cv-04670-WHA Document 14 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the

court and serving it on respondent within thirty days of the date the answer is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.08\MELENDEZ4670.OSC2.wpd 

Case 3:08-cv-04670-WHA Document 14 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2