Bates v. The People of the State of California

S.D. California

Bates v. The People of the State of California

DecidedApril 1, 2020

Docket3:18-cv-01563

StatusUnknown

This text of Bates v. The People of the State of California (Bates v. The People of the State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bates v. The People of the State of California, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GILBERT JOSEPH BATES, Case No.: 18cv1563-MMA (MSB)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 13 v. MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS 14 DANIEL A. PARAMO, WARDEN,

15 Respondent. [Doc. No. 29]

16 17 18 19 Petitioner Gilbert Joseph Bates (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 20 has filed a First Amended Petition (“FAP”) for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 5. The Court previously cautioned Petitioner that his FAP 22 contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims and informed Petitioner of his options 23 for proceeding with a mixed petition. See Doc. Nos. 17, 22. 24 On March 25, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the 25 unexhausted claims in his FAP—Claims Two through Six. See Doc. No. 29. Upon due 26 consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion. 27 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Claims Two through Six in the FAP. See Rose v. 28 Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982) (holding that a petitioner who files a mixed petition 1 “resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims to the district 2 || court.”). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: April 1, 2020 5 6 LMakuh la (lil HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GILBERT JOSEPH BATES, Case No.: 18cv1563-MMA (MSB)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 13 v. MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS 14 DANIEL A. PARAMO, WARDEN,

15 Respondent. [Doc. No. 29]

16 17 18 19 Petitioner Gilbert Joseph Bates (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 20 has filed a First Amended Petition (“FAP”) for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 5. The Court previously cautioned Petitioner that his FAP 22 contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims and informed Petitioner of his options 23 for proceeding with a mixed petition. See Doc. Nos. 17, 22. 24 On March 25, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the 25 unexhausted claims in his FAP—Claims Two through Six. See Doc. No. 29. Upon due 26 consideration, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion. 27 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Claims Two through Six in the FAP. See Rose v. 28 Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982) (holding that a petitioner who files a mixed petition 1 “resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims to the district 2 || court.”). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: April 1, 2020 5 6 LMakuh la (lil HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bates v. The People of the State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-the-people-of-the-state-of-california-casd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack