Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00390/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00390-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roseanne Campbell
Respondent
James J. Steadman
Petitioner

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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES J. STEADMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-CV-00390 AWI LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #7]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 8, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that all

other motions be likewise DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. 

The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any

objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On June 6, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

Case 1:06-cv-00390-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 06/27/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1),

this petition containing unexhausted claims must be dismissed. The court simply has no authority

to hold in abeyance a petition, like the one before this court, that contains only unexhausted claims. 

See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005) (allowing abeyance pending exhaustion of mixed

petition that contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 8, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; 

3. All other motions are DENIED; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00390-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 2