De'Armond v. Ducart

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/09/15 ordering that this action is dismissed. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL THOMAS DeARMOND, JR.,

12

No. 2:15-cv-1262 KJN P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

C.E. DUCART,

15

ORDER

Respondent.

16
Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas

17
18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the

19

undersigned. (ECF No. 4.)
On September 1, 2015, the undersigned issued an order informing petitioner that this

20
21

action could not proceed because none of the claims raised were exhausted. (ECF No. 7.) The

22

undersigned also stated that it appeared that petitioner had exhausted some claims in a petition for

23

review filed in the California Supreme Court, but none of these exhausted claims were raised in

24

the instant action. (Id.) The undersigned granted petitioner thirty days to file an amended

25

petition containing his exhausted and his unexhausted claims and a motion to stay this action.

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

1

(Id.) Petitioner was informed that his failure to respond to this order would result in dismissal of

2

this action.1 (Id.)

3

Thirty days passed and petitioner did not respond to the September 1, 2015 order.

4

Accordingly, the undersigned orders dismissal of this action because it contains only unexhausted

5

claims. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971).

6
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed.
Dated: October 9, 2015

8
9
10
De1262.dis
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In a previous order, the undersigned cautioned petitioner regarding the statute of limitations.
(See ECF No. 5.)
2