Hernandez v. Allison
Filing
23
ORDER Granting Petitioner's 22 Motion to Withdraw Unexhausted Claims Two, Three, and Four signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 06/10/2011. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ESTEBAN D. HERNANDEZ,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
CATHY ALLISON, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)
1:10-cv-01026-AWI-JLT HC
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW UNEXHAUSTED
CLAIMS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR
(Doc. 22)
17
18
19
20
21
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 7, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court
22
raising four claims: (1) that Petitioner’s constitutional right to a jury trial was violated when
23
consecutive sentences were imposed; (2) that the second-degree murder conviction should be set
24
aside because insufficient evidence of implied malice was presented at the preliminary hearing; (3)
25
the “mere” fact that Petitioner was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol was
26
insufficient evidence of gross vehicular manslaughter at the preliminary hearing; and (4) that the
27
information must be set aside because each element of the charged offenses was not established at
28
the preliminary hearing. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-10; 15).
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
1
1
On July 2, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition. (Doc. 5).
2
On October 12, 2010, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss, contending that Petitioner had
3
exhausted only the first claim in state court and therefore either Petitioner should withdraw the
4
unexhausted claims or the petition should be dismissed. (Doc. 14). On December 2, 2010, the Court
5
issued Findings and Recommendations to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 17). On
6
January 11, 2011, with no objections having been filed, the District Judge adopted the Findings and
7
Recommendations, granted the motion to dismiss, and ordered that Petitioner file a motion
8
voluntarily withdrawing the three unexhausted claims within thirty days or risk having the entire
9
petition dismissed as a mixed petition. (Doc. 18). On February 7, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to
10
stay proceedings while he exhausts the three unexhausted claims in state court. (Doc. 19). On
11
February 28, 2011, Respondent filed an opposition, arguing that any newly exhausted claims would
12
be untimely, that Petitioner had not acted with diligence in this case, and that, in any event, the
13
unexhausted claims are clearly without merit and raise only issues of state law. (Doc. 20).
14
On May 20, 2011, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for stay, finding that the three
15
unexhausted claims, which raised issues of state law only, did not allege cognizable federal habeas
16
claims. (Doc. 21). On June 8, 2008, Petitioner filed the instant motion to withdraw claims two,
17
three, and four as unexhausted and to proceed on claim one. (Doc. 22).
18
Because the three claims that Petitioner seeks to withdraw are in fact unexhausted, and
19
because the Court has already determined that the claims would be meritless because they raise only
20
issues of state law, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion.
21
ORDER
22
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
23
1.
24
Petitioner’s motion with withdraw grounds two, three, and four (Doc. 22), is
GRANTED.
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
Dated: June 10, 2011
9j7khi
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?