Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Pineda v. Williams, 3:16-cv-00187-RCJ-WGC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20181113c61 Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 filed by Nevada state prisoner Ray Pineda is before the court on petitioner's declaration in response to this court's order granting respondents' motion to dismiss in part (ECF No. 23). On August 22, 2017, this court concluded that several grounds in the petition were unexhausted (ECF No. 23). On May 23, 2018, the court denied Pineda's motion for a stay and abeyance (ECF N
More

ORDER

This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Nevada state prisoner Ray Pineda is before the court on petitioner's declaration in response to this court's order granting respondents' motion to dismiss in part (ECF No. 23).

On August 22, 2017, this court concluded that several grounds in the petition were unexhausted (ECF No. 23). On May 23, 2018, the court denied Pineda's motion for a stay and abeyance (ECF No. 29, see also ECF No. 30). The court then directed Pineda to either: (1) inform this court in a sworn declaration that he wished to formally and forever abandon the unexhausted grounds for relief in his federal habeas petition and proceed on the exhausted grounds; or (2) inform this court in a sworn declaration that he wished to dismiss this petition without prejudice in order to return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims (ECF Nos. 29, 32).

In response, Pineda has filed a declaration in which he states that he wishes to dismiss this petition without prejudice in order to return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims (ECF No. 33). Thus, in accordance with petitioner's declaration, this petition is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as set forth in this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's request for an updated docket sheet (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED. The Clerk SHALL SEND to petitioner one copy of the docket sheet.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT and close this case.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer