Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DELBOSQUE v. SINCLAIR, C13-5495 BHS-KLS. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20150113c79 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 15, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KAREN L. STROMBOM, Magistrate Judge. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Petitioner is an inmate housed at the Washington State Penitentiary. Petitioner is represented by counsel. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The parties have filed a motion to dismiss this habeas corpus petition witho
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAREN L. STROMBOM, Magistrate Judge.

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Petitioner is an inmate housed at the Washington State Penitentiary. Petitioner is represented by counsel. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.

The parties have filed a motion to dismiss this habeas corpus petition without prejudice. Dkt. 28. In 1994 petitioner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole and Mr. Delbosque was under the age of eighteen when he was sentenced. Dkt. 1. Petitioner filed the petition in light of the Supreme Court holding calling into question the legality of life sentences for persons under the age of eighteen. Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___ 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed. 2d 407 (2012).

Since the filing of this petition the Washington State Legislature has passed new legislation and instituted a procedure for re-sentencing persons with sentences like Mr. Delbosque. Dkt. 28, p. Petitioner is scheduled for re-sentencing. Id.

In light of these changes in the law, the undersigned recommends granting the parties motion to dismiss this petition without prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(B)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P.") 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the clerk is directed to set this matter for consideration on January 9, 2015, as noted in the caption.

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