Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01738/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01738-0/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 - 05cv1738

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ROMERO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05cv1738 JM(AJB)

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; DENYING

MOTION TO DISMISS

vs.

STUART J. RYAN, Warden,

Respondent.

On August 27, 2007 Magistrate Judge Battaglia entered a Report and

Recommendation (“R & R”) on Respondent’s motion to dismiss, recommending that

Petitioner be required to elect between a dismissal of the Petition in its entirety or to

delete the unexhausted claims from the Petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.

In his motion to dismiss, Respondent argues that the unexhausted claims must be

deleted or the petition dismissed pursuant to Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982).

In his Objections, Petitioner argues for the first time that the Petition was timely

filed because he timely and properly filed a state petition for habeas corpus containing

the unexhausted claims (claims 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10). By timely filing the petition in state

court, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to the statutory tolling afforded by 28 U.S.C.

§2244(d)(1), and therefore the Petition, including the now exhausted claims, should be

considered timely filed as of about June 2, 2006, the date Petitioner filed the Notice of

Exhaustion of Unexhausted Claims. 

Case 3:05-cv-01738-JM-AJB Document 31 Filed 09/26/07 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 - 05cv1738

In light of Petitioner’s claim that the Petition is timely filed within the meaning

of AEDPA, the exhaustion issues cannot be affirmatively resolved without resolution

of the timeliness issue. The court notes that if the fully exhausted Petition were

considered timely filed as of June 2, 2006, an issue not addressed or opposed by

Respondent, then there would be no basis to dismiss the Petition for failure to exhaust

because the Petition, as of June 2, 2006, contained only exhausted claims. In light of

Respondent’s failure to respond or to oppose Petitioner’s timeliness argument raised in

the Objections, this court cannot conclude that the Petition should now be dismissed for

failure to exhaust.

In sum, absent a response to Petitioner’s timeliness argument, Respondent fails

to adequately demonstrate that the Petition should be dismissed as unexhausted.

Accordingly, the court declines to adopt the R & R and denies the motion to dismiss

without prejudice, subject to a further showing on the timeliness of the Petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 26, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Magistrate Judge Battaglia

Case 3:05-cv-01738-JM-AJB Document 31 Filed 09/26/07 Page 2 of 2