(HC) Hunter-Harrison v. Atchley

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/16/2021 ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations in full; DENYING 11 Motion to Dismiss based on the statute of limitations and granted to the extent that claims one and two are state law claims not cognizable on federal habeas corpus; DISMISSING claims one and two in 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus because they are non-cognizable state law claims for relief; GRANTING 14 Motion to Stay; DIRECTING the clerk to administratively c lose the file in this case; DIRECTING petitioner to file a status report with the court every 90 days; and DIRECTING petitioner to file a Motion to Lift the Stay within 30 days from the date of any decision by the California Supreme Court upon the co mpletion of state habeas review. Petitioner's failure to file the status reports or to properly exhaust his state court remedies will result in an order lifting the stay of this case and the ineffective assistance of counsel claims will be dismissed as unexhausted. CASE CLOSED. (Coll, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 GRANVAL G. HUNTER-HARRISON, JR., Petitioner, 13 14 15 No. 2:20-cv-0592 WBS CKD P ORDER v. M. ATCHLEY, Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 9, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 23 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Petitioner has filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 28 analysis. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 9, 2020, are adopted in full. 3 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is denied based on the statute of 4 limitations and granted to the extent that claims one and two are state law claims not cognizable 5 on federal habeas corpus. 6 7 8 9 3. Claims one and two in petitioner’s federal habeas application (ECF No. 1) be dismissed because they are non-cognizable state law claims for relief. 4. Petitioner’s motion to stay these proceedings pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), (ECF No. 14), be granted. 10 5. The Clerk of Court be directed to administratively close this case. 11 6. Petitioner be directed to file a status report with the court every 90 days indicating 12 what effort(s) he has taken to properly exhaust his ineffective assistance of counsel claims by 13 pursuing habeas corpus relief in state court. 14 7. Upon the completion of state habeas review, petitioner is directed to file a motion to 15 lift the stay within 30 days from the date of any decision by the California Supreme Court. 16 8. Petitioner’s failure to file the status reports or to properly exhaust his state court 17 remedies will result in an order lifting the stay of this case and the ineffective assistance of 18 counsel claims will be dismissed as unexhausted. 19 Dated: February 16, 2021 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 12/hunt0592.805hc 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?