Jones

Jones v. Madden

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 24, 20203:18-cv-02173California534 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Ryan JONES, Case No.: 18-cv-2173-LAB-AGS Petitioner, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO GRANT PETITIONER’S

v.

UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR

Raymond MADDEN, Warden WITHDRAWAL AND ABEYANCE (ECF Nos. 12 & 14) Respondent. 15 On September 28, 2018, the Court notified petitioner Ryan Jones that his habeas corpus petition was deficient because it contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. (ECF No. 2, at 2.) Specifically, Jones failed to present Claims 3- to the California Supreme Court. (Id.) To remedy this defect, Jones moves to withdraw Claims 3-6 until he fully exhausts those claims in state court and to stay this federal case until that exhaustion is finalized. The Warden did not respond to or oppose these motions. To achieve a “withdrawal and abeyance,” a petitioner must (1) voluntarily withdraw his unexhausted claims, (2) ask the Court to stay the proceedings and hold the petition’s fully-exhausted portion…

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.