Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01639/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01639-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donovan Chad Brevik
Petitioner
Charles Schuyler
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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONOVAN CHAD BREVIK, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CHARLES SCHUYLER, Acting Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:23-cv-01639-KJM-EFB (HC) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This court previously found his First Amended Petition 

(ECF No. 33) to be the operative pleading in this matter. ECF No. 35. Respondent has since 

filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29), which petitioner has opposed. ECF No. 38. 

Respondent moves to dismiss on the sole basis that petitioner’s Claim 7 (cumulative error) 

is allegedly unexhausted. Respondent does not allege that any of petitioner’s other claims are 

unexhausted, nor does respondent allege any other grounds to dismiss the petition. Respondent 

points out that when a petitioner files a petition for writ of habeas corpus with an unexhausted 

claim, the petitioner must either drop his unexhausted claims and proceed with the exhausted 

claims, or the entire petition must be dismissed. See Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1026 

(9th Cir. 2008) (citing Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005)).1

1

 A petitioner may also file a motion to stay a mixed petition pending exhaustion of any 

Case 2:23-cv-01639-DC-EFB Document 43 Filed 08/05/24 Page 1 of 3
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 

In response, petitioner states that he would drop the cumulative error claim from his 

petition and proceed with the remainder of his claims. While petitioner stated in his opposition 

that he wanted to drop the claim without being required to file a further amended petition, he has 

in fact subsequently filed a Second Amended Petition that did not include Claim 7. ECF No. 39. 

Petitioner has elected to delete Claim 7 and proceed with the other exhausted claims in his 

petition, and he has filed a subsequent petition the excludes Claim 7. ECF Nos. 38 and 39. This 

moots the pending motion. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that: 

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29) be DENIED as moot. 

2. Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 39), which does not include 

Claim 7, be deemed the operative complaint in this matter. 

3. Respondent be directed to file and serve a response to the Second Amended 

Petition within 60 days from the date of any order adopting these findings and 

recommendations, accompanied by all transcripts or other documents relevant 

to the determination of the issues presented in the application. See Rules 4, 5, 

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

4. Petitioner be directed to file and serve his reply, if any, within 30 days of 

service of an answer. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

///// 

///// 

///// 

unexhausted claims in state court. Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1026. Here, petitioner did not request a 

stay, and specifically stated in his opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss that he wanted to 

delete his unexhausted claim and not move for a stay. ECF No. 38. 

Case 2:23-cv-01639-DC-EFB Document 43 Filed 08/05/24 Page 2 of 3
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 

3 

Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service 

of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: August 2, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-01639-DC-EFB Document 43 Filed 08/05/24 Page 3 of 3