(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)
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?