Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01862/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01862-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffery Broadway
Petitioner
State of California
Respondent

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFERY BROADWAY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1862 LKK EFB P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On August 21, 2006, petitioner (without counsel) filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He apparently misdirected his petition to this court. On August

30, 2006, petitioner notified the court that he intended to file the petition in the California

Superior Court and not in federal court. The court has reviewed the petition and finds that the

caption clearly states, “Superior Court of the State of California County of Sacramento.”

Accordingly, the court finds petitioner intended to file the petition in the state court and

construes the August 30, 2006, notice as a notice of voluntarily dismissal pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a). 

A petitioner may dismiss an action without a court order at any time before respondent

serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); see also Rule 11,

Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. Respondent has not filed an answer or a motion for

Case 2:06-cv-01862-LKK -EFB Document 8 Filed 09/29/06 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

1

 The court has not ordered service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Proceedings. 

2

 A federal application for habeas corpus must be filed within one year of the date a

conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(1)(A). In California, a conviction is final 90

days after the California Supreme Court denies a petition for direct review. Bowen v. Roe, 188

F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). While the time an applicant properly pursues state postconviction remedies tolls the limitation period, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Saffold v. Carey, 536

U.S. 214, 225 (2002), the time a petition is pending in the federal has no tolling effect. Duncan

v. Walker, 531 U.S. 991 (2001). Accordingly, petitioner promptly must pursue available state

remedies with respect to the judgment he intends to challenge.

2

summary judgment.1

The Clerk of the Court therefore is directed to enter petitioner’s dismissal without

prejudice.2

So ordered. 

Dated: September 29, 2006.

\broa1862.vol dismiss hc

Case 2:06-cv-01862-LKK -EFB Document 8 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2