Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01854/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01854-0/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 05CV1854

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Andre Miguel Washington,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05cv1854 BTM (PCL)

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION,

SETTING DEADLINES AND

REMANDING TO MAGISTRATE

FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

vs.

Jeanne S. Woodford, et al.,

Respondents.

On September 13, 2005, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). He subsequently filed

an amended petition on November 29, 2005 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel

as the sole ground for relief. In particular, Petitioner complained that counsel had failed to

conduct a pre-trial investigation, failed to admit evidence at trial that proved his innocence,

and failed to allow Petitioner to testify at trial. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the

Petition for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies on January 23, 2006. Petitioner did not

file any opposition to the motion. On June 5, 2006, Magistrate Judge Lewis filed a Report

and Recommendation recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust state judicial remedies be granted. Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and

Recommendation on September 5, 2006 indicating that he had met the exhaustion

requirement by his filing on November 30, 2005 of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with

the California Supreme Court alleging the same ineffective assistance of counsel ground.

Case 3:05-cv-01854-BTM-PCL Document 24 Filed 09/26/06 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 05CV1854

Petitioner did, however, indicate that the California Supreme Court had not issued any

decision on the matter. Apparently unbeknownst to Petitioner at the time of filing his

objections, the California Supreme Court had issued a decision denying his Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus on August 23, 2006.

The Report and Recommendation was correct that Petitioner had failed to exhaust his

state judicial remedies as of the time of its filing and, therefore, dismissal of the Petition

would be required. However, due to the subsequent entry of a final judgment in Petitioner’s

state court habeas petition action, exhaustion is now complete. Accordingly, the Court

DECLINES TO ADOPT the Report and Recommendation and Respondent’s motion to

dismiss the Petition for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies is DENIED.

Respondents are ordered to file an answer to Petition within 45 days of entry of this

order. Petitioner shall file any traverse within 45 days of the filing of Respondent’s answer.

The Court REMANDS this case to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 26, 2006

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01854-BTM-PCL Document 24 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2