Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00750-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Saunders
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON SAUNDERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JAMES A. YATES, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-00750 AWI LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #17]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 15, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition in this Court. After the Magistrate

Judge directed Respondent to file a response, on November 18, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to

dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. On January 19, 2007, conceding nonexhaustion, Petitioner filed a notice of non-opposition and motion for voluntary dismissal. The

undersigned granted the motions to dismiss on February 12, 2007, and dismissed the petition without

prejudice.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s April 13, 2007, motion for reconsideration of the

order dismissing the petition. 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud 

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

Case 1:06-cv-00750-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 05/14/07 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been

reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of the judgment.

Petitioner states the California Supreme Court denied a petition on March 14, 2007.

However, he is not certain whether the claims he raised in the instant petition were raised in that

state petition. In light of the recently denied state petition, Petitioner moves to reopen the case.

Petitioner’s arguments fail to meet the standard for reconsideration. The petition was

dismissed on February 12, 2007. Regardless of whether the state court petition that was denied on

March 14, 2007, exhausted the instant claims, the federal petition contained unexhausted claims at

the time it was dismissed. Therefore, even if Petitioner had not moved to voluntarily dismiss the

petition, it would have been properly dismissed. Moreover, Petitioner is not even certain if the state

petition did exhaust the instant claims. For these reasons, his motion will be denied. The dismissal of

his petition was without prejudice; therefore, he may file a new federal petition with the Court.

However, Petitioner is strongly cautioned that he must bring only exhausted claims. The Supreme

Court has held that:

[I]n the habeas corpus context it would be appropriate for an order dismissing a mixed 

petition to instruct an applicant that upon his return to federal court he is to bring only

exhausted claims. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 41(a) and (b). Once the petitioner is made

aware of the exhaustion requirement, no reason exists for him not to exhaust all potential

claims before returning to federal court. The failure to comply with an order of the court is

grounds for dismissal with prejudice. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 41(b).

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489 (2000). Therefore, Petitioner is forewarned that in the event

he returns to federal court and files a mixed petition of exhausted and unexhausted claims, the

petition may be dismissed with prejudice. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00750-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 2