Reginald Holmes v. Federal District Court

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Manuel L. Real: (see attached) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice. It is so ordered. (jm)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 REGINALD HOLMES, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, 16 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 17-4651-R (AJW) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 17 18 Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 raising six claims for relief. [Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1]. On August 28, 20 2017, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground 21 that petitioner’s claims were unexhausted. [Dkt. 6]. Petitioner did 22 not file an opposition. On October 4, 2017, the Court issued an order 23 explaining that the petition was subject to dismissal based upon 24 petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state remedies. Petitioner was 25 informed that he had two options: (1) he could file a notice of intent 26 to dismiss the petition or (2) he could file a motion to stay the 27 proceedings to allow him to exhaust his state remedies. The October 4, 28 2017 order advised petitioner that failure to respond would be deemed his consent to dismissal of the petition without prejudice. 1 Petitioner’s response to the order was due on November 1, 2017. As of 2 the date of this order, petitioner has neither filed a response nor 3 requested additional time within which to do so. 4 “An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person 5 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be 6 granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the 7 remedies 8 2254(b)(1)(A); see Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995)(per 9 curiam). As explained in respondent’s motion to dismiss and the 10 October 4, 2017 order, petitioner has failed to exhaust his state 11 remedies with respect to any of the claims presented in his petition. 12 Further, petitioner’s failure to respond to the October 4, 2017 order 13 is deemed his consent to the dismissal of this unexhausted petition. 14 Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice. 15 It is so ordered. available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. 16 17 Dated: November 27, 2017 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Manuel L. Real United States District Judge §

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?