Terrell Cooks v. Matthew Cate

Filing 46

ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg, re MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 38 , Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254), 1 . Pursuant to Petition er's Notice of Dismissal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing the First Amended Petition without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition is deniedas moot. (See Order for details.) (mp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRELL COOKS,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW CATE,
Respondent.

16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 13-811-AGR
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On December 5, 2013, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the entire petition is
unexhausted. Petitioner filed an opposition.
On January 6, 2015, this court issued an opinion and order. This court found that the

22

petition was mixed in that Ground Six was exhausted but Grounds One through Five were

23

unexhausted. The opinion and order presented Petitioner with three options.

24

On March 9, 2015, Petitioner filed a Notice of Dismissal to dismiss the petition without

25

prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). (Dkt. No. 45.) This court again cautions

26

Petitioner that any future federal habeas petition will be subject to the one-year statute of

27

limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The one-year period starts running on the latest of

28

either the date when a conviction became final under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) or on a

1

date set in § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D). This court expresses no view as to whether a future habeas

2

petition will be timely.

3

Pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice of Dismissal,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing the First Amended

5
6
7

Petition without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is denied
as moot.

8
9

DATED: March 11, 2015
ALICIA G. ROSENBERG
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2