TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Arthur Calderon, Warden v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Larry Roberts, Real Party in Interest

Arthur CALDERON, Warden, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SACRAMENTO), Respondent, Larry Roberts, Real Party in Interest

Calderon v. United States Dist. Court for the Eastern Dist. of Cal. (Sacramento), Larry Roberts, Real Party in Interest, 113 F.3d 149 (9th Cir. 1997)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 5, 1997
Docket
No. 95-70807
Judges
Wallace, Fletcher, Kozinski
Citations
113 F.3d 14997 Daily Journal DAR 571597 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 33001997 U.S. App. LEXIS 9791

Opinion

ORDER The order filed April 14, 1997 was not published. It should have been and it is now ordered published.

ORDER Arthur Calderon, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, petitions for a writ of mandamus directed to the district court ordering it to vacate its grant of the discovery motions of Larry Roberts, the real party in interest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 .

In light of the concession by petitioner that his federal habeas petition contains unexhausted claims that must be dismissed or pursued in state court before they may be included in the federal habeas petition, discovery at this time is inappropriate.

See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 513-520 , 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1200-1204 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982);

Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct., 107 F.3d 756 (9th Cir.1997) (Gordon);

Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct., 98 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.1996) (Nicolaus).

We GRANT the petition for writ of mandamus and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate its discovery order unless the real party in interest elects to amend his petition to include only exhausted claims or dismiss without prejudice his current petition for federal habeas corpus relief and file a new petition containing only exhausted claims.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1997: 21998: 22004: 12019: 12020: 22022: 12023: 22025: 119972026peak 1997 · 2

Most recent

  1. Gregory v. NagyNo. 2:22-cv-13119 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 6, 2025)
  2. Skellett v. RewertsNo. 2:20-cv-12724 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2023)
  3. (HC) Ward v. PeeryNo. 2:21-cv-02220 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2023)
  4. (DP)(HC) Horning v. BroomfieldNo. 2:10-cv-01932 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2022)
  5. Ojeda-Enriquez v. WardenNo. 2:18-cv-01207 (D. Nev. July 13, 2020)
  6. Robbins v. State of NevadaNo. 2:18-cv-00698 (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2020)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) 5,534
Calderon v. The United States Dist. Court for the Northern Dist. of Cal., Robert Henry Nicolaus, Real-Party-In-Interest, 98 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 1996) 139
Calderon v. United States Dist. Court for the Eastern Dist. of Cal., 107 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 1997) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list