Rivera v. Croskrey

E.D. Washington

Rivera v. Croskrey

DecidedOctober 31, 2019

Docket4:19-cv-05185

StatusUnknown

This text of Rivera v. Croskrey (Rivera v. Croskrey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rivera v. Croskrey, (E.D. Wash. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 U.S. F DIL ISE TD R I IN C TT H CE O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Oct 31, 2019

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 MARIN JESUS RIVERA, JR., No. 4:19-cv-05185-SMJ 5 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS 6 CORPUS PETITION WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE 7 TOM CROSKREY, 8 Respondent. 9

10 By order filed August 26, 2019, the Court advised Petitioner of the 11 deficiencies of his habeas corpus petition and directed him to amend it within sixty 12 days to demonstrate that he has exhausted his state court remedies. ECF No. 7. On 13 October 21, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 9, 14 affirmatively asserting that he has not exhausted a personal restraint petition in the 15 state courts and seeking additional time to do so. 16 It plainly appears from the petition and accompanying documents that 17 Petitioner did not exhaust his state court remedies. Therefore, the petition will be 18 dismissed. See Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003); Vang v. 19 Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has presented no basis for 20 this Court’s intervention in pending state court proceedings. See Perez v. Ledesma, 1 U.S. 82, 85 (1971). 2 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition, ECF No. 1, is 3 || DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state court 4 ||remedies. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order, 6 enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifies

7 ||that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be 8 ||taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of

9 ||appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of 10 || appealability is therefore DENIED. 11 DATED this 31st day of October 2019. 12 (ou a.Qa basen he Se .LVADOR MENS? KA, JR. 13 United States District Sidge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WITHOUT PRETITINICE _ 9

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

1 U.S. F DIL ISE TD R I IN C TT H CE O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Oct 31, 2019

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 MARIN JESUS RIVERA, JR., No. 4:19-cv-05185-SMJ 5 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS 6 CORPUS PETITION WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE 7 TOM CROSKREY, 8 Respondent. 9

10 By order filed August 26, 2019, the Court advised Petitioner of the 11 deficiencies of his habeas corpus petition and directed him to amend it within sixty 12 days to demonstrate that he has exhausted his state court remedies. ECF No. 7. On 13 October 21, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 9, 14 affirmatively asserting that he has not exhausted a personal restraint petition in the 15 state courts and seeking additional time to do so. 16 It plainly appears from the petition and accompanying documents that 17 Petitioner did not exhaust his state court remedies. Therefore, the petition will be 18 dismissed. See Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003); Vang v. 19 Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has presented no basis for 20 this Court’s intervention in pending state court proceedings. See Perez v. Ledesma, 1 U.S. 82, 85 (1971). 2 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition, ECF No. 1, is 3 || DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state court 4 ||remedies. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order, 6 enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifies

7 ||that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be 8 ||taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of

9 ||appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of 10 || appealability is therefore DENIED. 11 DATED this 31st day of October 2019. 12 (ou a.Qa basen he Se .LVADOR MENS? KA, JR. 13 United States District Sidge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WITHOUT PRETITINICE _ 9

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rivera v. Croskrey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-croskrey-waed-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack