Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00539/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00539-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Forrest Lee Jones
Petitioner
Jeanne S. Woodford
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORREST LEE JONES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00539 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #17]

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 August 23, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state remedies. The Magistrate

Judge further recommended that 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 September 7, 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-00539-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 10/04/06 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.

Petitioner requests that the petition be stayed and held in abeyance pending exhaustion of his

claims in the California Supreme Court. However, the entire petition is unexhausted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b)(1) requires dismissal of the petition. Petitioner claims dismissal will result in Petitioner

being barred from refiling his petition, because Respondent may then argue the petition should be

dismissed as successive. Petitioner’s arguments are misplaced. A dismissal for failure to exhaust is

not a dismissal on the merits, and Petitioner will not be barred from returning to federal court after

Petitioner exhausts available state remedies by 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)’s prohibition on filing second

petitions. See In re Turner, 101 F.3d 1323 (9 Cir. 1996). th

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 23, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00539-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2