Robertson

(HC) Cleveland v. Robertson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 23, 20212:20-cv-00674California2,990 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PIERRE CLEVELAND, No. 2:20-cv-0674 WBS KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

JAMES ROBERTSON,1 Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action because it was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)), and it contains an unexhausted claim (28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)). Petitioner did not timely oppose the motion. On December 2, 2020, petitioner was ordered to show cause why his failure to oppose the motion should not be deemed a waiver of any opposition to granting the motion, and ordered to file an opposition. Petitioner filed a response, and was granted an additional thirty days in which to file his opposition. Thirty days have now passed, and petitioner has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded. As discussed below, the…

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.