(HC) Sharonoff v. Warden, No. 2:2013cv00794 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/30/2014 ADOPTING IN FULL 36 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 19 , 22 Motions to Stay; STRIKING 21 , 24 Amended Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus; DIRECTING the petitioner to file with in 28 days, a notice electing to delete the unexhausted claims and to proceed on the merits of his remaining exhausted claims in the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ALTERNATIVELY DIRECTING the petitioner to file within 28 days, a notice of vo luntary dismissal of this case without prejudice; INFORMING the petitioner that a failure to elect either option within the time provided will result in the striking and disregarding of the unexhausted claims identified herein and the submission of the case on the basis of the petition as amended by operation of this order; DECLINING to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. (Michel, G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Sharonoff v. Warden Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH A. SHARANOFF, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-00794-TLN-AC-P v. ORDER WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 3, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, 20 21 which were served on all parties and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Petitioner has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations, as well as a “Personal Note.” In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 3, 2014 (ECF No. 36), are adopted 3 in full; 4 2. Petitioner’s motions for a stay (ECF Nos. 19, 22) are denied; 5 3. Petitioner’s amended federal habeas petitions (ECF No. 21, 24) are stricken from the 6 docket; 7 4. Petitioner is directed to file, within 28 days, either: 1) a notice that he elects to delete 8 the unexhausted claims and proceed on the merits of his remaining exhausted claims in the 9 original § 2254 petition; or 2) a notice of voluntary dismissal of this case without prejudice; 10 5. In the event that Petitioner fails to elect either option identified above within the time 11 provided, the claims identified herein as unexhausted will be stricken and those portions of the 12 petition disregarded for all purposes. The case will then be deemed submitted on the basis of the 13 petition as amended by operation of this order; and 14 6. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2253. 16 Dated: October 30, 2014 17 18 19 20 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
