Whitmore v. Hense
Filing
53
ORDER Adopting 51 Report and Recommendation; Overruling Petitioner's Objections; and Denying 46 Motion to Include Previously Abandoned Grounds for Relief. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the files and records herein, the Co urt adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner's Motion to Reinstate Previously Abandoned Claims 5 and 6. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 8/4/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh) (jrl).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PAUL GORDON WHITMORE,
CASE NO. 09 CV 1324 MMA (MDD)
Petitioner,
12
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE;
13
14
vs.
[Doc. No. 51]
15
OVERRULING PETITIONER’S
OBJECTIONS;
16
[Doc. No. 52]
17
MATTHEW CATE, Warden,
19
DENYING MOTION TO INCLUDE
PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED
GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
20
[Doc. No. 46]
18
Respondent.
21
On May 26, 2009, Petitioner Paul Gordon Whitmore, a state prisoner proceeding pro se
22
and in forma pauperis, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
23
[Doc. No. 1.] On July 14, 2009, the Court notified Petitioner that some of his claims may be
24
subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust his state remedies. [Doc. No. 12.]
25
On November 2, 2009, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Revisit Prima Facie, Amend Petition
26
and Enlarge Time Limit for Traverse.” [Doc. No. 23.] Therein, Petitioner requested, inter alia,
27
the Court to reconsider whether claims 5 and 6 are exhausted. [Id. at p.3.] Petitioner indicated
28
that if the Court still considers claims 5 and 6 unexhausted, he will ask the Court to dismiss these
-1-
09cv1324
1
claims without prejudice. [Id.] On November 4, 2009, the Court issued an order indicating it
2
received Petitioner’s motion to “revisit prima facie” the same day the Court issued a detailed
3
Notice regarding Petitioner’s likely failure to exhaust claims 4, 5 and 6. [Doc. No. 26, p.2.] The
4
Court indicated that the Notice set forth Petitioner’s options as to the unexhausted claims, and
5
directed Petitioner to review the Notice and respond accordingly. [Id.]
6
Specifically, the Court’s November 3, 2009 Notice to Petitioner [Doc. No. 21] indicated
7
that three of his claims—numbers 4, 5 and 6—were not exhausted. The Court advised Petitioner
8
he had four options: (1) Petitioner could file additional papers with the Court demonstrating the
9
claims had been exhausted; (2) Petitioner could voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and
10
return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims; (3) Petitioner could formally abandon his
11
unexhausted claims and proceed only on those properly exhausted; or (4) Petitioner could file a
12
motion to stay his federal petition while he returned to state court to exhaust claims 4, 5 and 6.
13
[Doc. No. 21, p.2-4.] With respect to the third option, the Court cautioned Petitioner that if he
14
abandons the unexhausted claims, he may lose the ability to ever raise them in federal court. The
15
Court further advised Petitioner, that if he chose the fourth option, Petitioner could proceed one of
16
two ways. First, Petitioner could ask the Court to stay his mixed petition while he returned to state
17
court to exhaust claims 4, 5 and 6, or he could voluntarily withdraw his unexhausted claims and
18
request the Court to stay his fully-exhausted petition while he returns to state court to exhaust, and
19
then seek permission to amend his petition to include the newly exhausted claims after exhaustion
20
is complete.
21
On December 14, 2009, Petitioner responded to the Court’s Notice by filing a “Motion to
22
Dismiss Claim Nos. 5 and 6 and to Ask for Clarification as to Claim No. 4.” [Doc. No. 31.] In his
23
motion, Petitioner asked the Court to “dismiss and abandon his claims numbers [sic] 5 and 6.” [Id.
24
at p.1.] Petitioner stated he “considered each of the options the Court noted in the Notice
25
Regarding Possible Dismissal of Petition for Failure to Exhaust State Court Remedies. Petitioner
26
understands the potential consequences of this motion. Petitioner requests a dismissal without
27
prejudice.” [Id. a p.2.] On December 21, 2009, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to dismiss
28
unexhausted claims 5 and 6. [Doc. No. 32.]
-2-
09cv1324
1
On January 19, 2010, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Stay and Abeyance Regarding Grounds
2
4.” [Doc. No. 34.] The Court granted Petitioner’s motion to stay his federal action while he
3
proceeded in state court to exhaust claim 4. [Doc. No. 35.] On September 1, 2010, Petitioner filed
4
the pending motion to include his previously abandoned claims 5 and 6 in his original petition.
5
[Doc. No. 46.] Petitioner asserts the Court dismissed these claims without prejudice, and argues
6
that including them now does not constitute a successive petition because the Court did not rule on
7
the merits of the claims. [Id.] Respondent opposed Petitioner’s motion on October 1, 2010. [Doc.
8
No. 47.] Petitioner’s motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for
9
preparation of a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule
10
72.1(d). On April 29, 2011, this case was transferred to United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell
11
D. Dembin. [Doc. No. 50.]
12
Judge Dembin issued a well-reasoned and thorough Report recommending that Petitioner’s
13
motion to include previously abandoned claims 5 and 6 be denied. [Doc. No. 51.] Petitioner
14
timely filed objections, challenging the findings and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and
15
Recommendation. [Doc. No. 52.] Respondent did not file an objection to the Report, nor a
16
response to Petitioner’s objections.
17
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and
18
recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
19
report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
20
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Here, Petitioner objects to the
21
entirety of the Report. [Doc. No. 52.] Primarily, Petitioner asserts his entire petition was stayed
22
while he exhausted his state court remedies, and Judge Dembin failed to view the grounds raised
23
in claims 5 and 6 as sentencing errors which may be corrected at any time. [Id.] The Court has
24
considered the merits of each of Petitioner’s objections. With respect to Petitioner’s objections to
25
the findings of fact detailed in the Report, the Court overrules the objections, as they are amply
26
supported by the record. While petitioner is correct that the entire petition was stayed while he
27
exhausted his claims in state court, by the time the Court entered the stay on February 2, 2010, the
28
Court had already granted Petitioner’s motion to dismiss claims 5 and 6 on December 21, 2009.
-3-
09cv1324
1
Petitioner voluntarily chose to abandon claims 5 and 6, expressly acknowledging he understood
2
the consequences of his decision. [Doc. No. 31.] Petitioner has not identified any ground for the
3
Court to allow him to amend his petition to include these previously abandoned and time-barred
4
claims. Petitioner’s objections to the conclusions of law are similarly without merit, and are
5
therefore, overruled. Judge Dembin identified the correct legal standards, applied each standard
6
correctly, considered relevant case law, and reached sound conclusions that this Court has no
7
reason to reject.
8
9
10
11
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the files and records herein, the
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Petitioner’s motion to reinstate previously abandoned claims 5 and 6. [Doc. No. 46.]
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
DATED: August 4, 2011
14
15
16
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
09cv1324
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?