ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. No. 26], all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation dated July 30, 2019 of the assigned United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. No. 38], and Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Order (hereafter referred to as "Objections") constructively filed September 16, 2019 [Dkt. No. 41].1 The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made.

In his Objections, Petitioner concedes that habeas relief is not warranted under Ground Three of the First Amended Petition. [Dkt. No. 41, p. 4]. Petitioner states no objection to that portion of the Report and Recommendation. [Id.]. However, Petitioner also moves the court to reinstate two grounds that Petitioner previously voluntarily withdrew, specifically Grounds One and Two. [Dkt. No. 41].

Petitioner fails to establish adequate grounds for this court to reinstate Grounds One and Two. On his own accord, upon receipt of the Respondent's Return to the First Amended Petition, Petitioner voluntarily withdrew Grounds One and Two. [Dkt. No. 36]. Now, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), he asks the Court to reinstate them, "as a result of Petitioner's [] neglect, mistake, [and] inadvertence," because "as a lay person he couldn't discern the connection between SB 1437 changes in Penal Code § 188, and his federal claims of insufficiency of evidence of implied malice." [Dkt. No. 41, p. 2-3]. However, Rule 60 applies to final judgments, orders, and proceedings of the court, and is inapplicable to Petitioner's voluntary decisions. In short, Petitioner asks the Court to remedy the effects of a litigation decision that he now regrets. Even were Rule 60 to apply, Petitioner's regret alone is insufficient. See Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Rule 60(b)(1) is not intended to remedy the effects of a litigation decision that a party later comes to regret.").

Furthermore, this case was filed three years ago in August 2016. The First Amended Habeas Petition was filed in December of 2017. This case is aged and ready for decision. Nevertheless, Petitioner now asks the Court to stay the case because an appeal is pending in the California Court of Appeal. [Dkt. No. 41, p. 2]. Petitioner, therefore, admits that he has not fully exhausted all of his claims in the state courts, which is a prerequisite to federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). For all of these reasons, the court declines to exercise its discretion to reinstate Grounds One and Two.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: