Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00770/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00770-5/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

 See Orders, filed on 12/12/06 and 3/8/06. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E. CALDERON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0770 GEB GGH P

vs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

By Order, filed on August 4, 2006, petitioner was directed, inter alia, either to file

an amended petition of exhausted claims only, along with any memorandum of points and

authorities within 90 days, or, if unexhausted claims were identified, to file within the same time

period, an amended petition, setting forth all claims, exhausted and unexhausted, demonstrating

good cause for having failed to exhaust state court remedies as to any claim, as well as a motion

to stay the proceedings, pending exhaustion of state court remedies as to the unexhausted claims. 

If an amended petition of exhausted claims only were filed, respondent was directed to file an

answer or dispositive motion within 60 days thereafter.

Petitioner filed a first amended petition, after extensions of time were granted, on 1

April 5, 2007, but no response was forthcoming from respondent. Possibly respondent was

Case 2:06-cv-00770-TMB Document 20 Filed 09/10/07 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

2

confused by the claims of the first amended petition, since the court’s review of the first amended

petition indicates that at least claims 3 and 4, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and

appellate counsel, are unexhausted. However, no motion to stay the first amended petition

accompanied the filing of the amended petition, as per the court’s August 4, 2006, Order. 

Petitioner is granted 30 days to file a motion to hold the first amended petition in

abeyance, pending exhaustion. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this mixed

petition be dismissed. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S, Ct. 1198 (1982)(a federal district

court “must dismiss habeas petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims”). 

If petitioner moves for a stay and respondent objects, respondent must file any

opposition to such a motion within 30 days of service thereof; thereafter, petitioner has 15 days

to file any reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/10/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

cald0770.ord

Case 2:06-cv-00770-TMB Document 20 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 2