Full title: JOFAMA COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, Acting Warden, Respondent.
Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Date published: May 28, 2015
Facts
On March 31, 2010, the petitioner filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Pet.”) herein. The petition purported to allege six grounds for relief that, according to the petition, had previously been exhausted in a Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court. The petition included an attached brief (“Pet. Attach.”) in support of the petitioner’s six grounds for relief.
Concurrently with the filing of the petition, the petitioner filed a “Motion to Stay Adjudication of Habeas Corpus Petition to Allow Petitioner to Properly Exhaust Unexhausted Federal Claims.” The Motion to Stay listed nine additional ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims that the petitioner indicated he wanted to raise herein, but were not yet properly exhausted.
Issue
Decision
IT THEREFORE IS RECOMMENDED that the District Court issue an order:
(1) approving and accepting this Supplemental Report and Recommendation.
(2) denying the petitioner’s motion to amend concerning grounds 10–21 of the proposed amended petition.
(3) dismissing this action with prejudice.
Also, Read