Warden

Wayne Taylor, III v. Warden, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 22, 20252:25-cv-00398California829 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WAYNE TAYLOR, III,

Petitioner, No. 2:25-cv-00398-TLN-AC v. WARDEN, et al., ORDER Respondents.

16 17 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Wayne Taylor III’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for Reconsideration of the assigned magistrate judge’s October 20, 2025 order. (ECF Nos. 55, 62.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. The general facts of this case are known to both parties. Relevant here, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing in part that Petitioner failed to exhaust state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 13 at 4.) Specifically, Respondents argued Petitioner could refile his petition in state court. (Id. at 5–6.) In response, Petitioner filed several motions including a motion for an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 36.) Petitioner requested the evidentiary hearing to adjudicate whether Petitioner “fairly presented” his claim to the California 27 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.