Bates v. The People of the State of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Gilbert Joseph Bates, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, moved to voluntarily dismiss unexhausted claims (Claims Two through Six) from his First Amended Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court granted the motion and dismissed the unexhausted claims, leaving only the exhausted claims in the petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant Petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss unexhausted claims (Claims Two through Six).“Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion.” | agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. The petitioner filed a mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) and the Supreme Court's holding in Rose v. Lundy, a federal court must dismiss a mixed petition or stay it. The petitioner chose to voluntarily dismiss the unexhausted claims to cure the defect. The court's grant of the motion is the correct procedural response to allow the remaining exhausted claims to proceed. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal issue (mixed petition) and applies the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Rose v. Lundy) to resolve the procedural defect. The court's action of dismissing the unexhausted claims upon the petitioner's motion is the standard and appropriate remedy to allow the case to proceed on the exhausted claims. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for this procedural motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GILBERT JOSEPH BATES, Case No.: 18cv1563-MMA (MSB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 13 v. MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS 14 DANIEL A. PARAMO, WARDEN, 15 Respondent. [Doc. No. 29]
16 17 18 19 Petitioner Gilbert Joseph Bates (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 20 has filed a First Amended Petition (“FAP”) for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 5. The Court previously cautioned Petitioner that his FAP 22 contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims and informed Petitioner of his options 23 for proceeding with a mixed petition. See Doc. Nos. 17, 22. 24 On March 25, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the 25 unexhausted claims in his FAP—Claims Two through Six. See Doc. No. 29. Upon due 26 consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion. 27 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Claims Two through Six in the FAP. See Rose v. 28 Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982) (holding that a petitioner who files a mixed petition 1 “resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims to the district 2 || court.”). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: April 1, 2020 5 6 LMakuh la (lil HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28