Pfeiffer

(HC) Franklin v. Pfeiffer

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 11, 20232:23-cv-01039California1,077 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHRISTOPHER FRANKLIN, No. 2:23-cv-1039 KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER C. PFEIFFER, Warden, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis, with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 21, 2023, petitioner’s motion to amend was granted, and he was granted thirty days in which to file an amended petition. On August 4, 2023, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time and a request to retract his motion to amend. As discussed below, petitioner’s motion for extension of time is granted, and his motion to retract his motion to amend is partially granted. Petitioner has been advised that he must exhaust all claims in the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 8 at 1-2.) In the July 21, 2023 order, petitioner was advised that it was unclear whether petitioner had presented the proposed ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the California Supreme Court,…

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.