Lamarr Brown v. Kim Holland

Filing 36

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 34 . IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Respondent's Motion is GRANTED; (2) Petitioner's Stay Motion is DENIED; (3) Petitioner's req uest to exercise Option Two is GRANTED and the First Amended Petition is deemed amended to delete Ground Three and the Vargas subclaim of Ground Four; (4) Within sixty days of this Order, Respondent shall file and serve an Answer to the First Amend ed Petition as amended herein, namely, to Grounds One, Two, and the misinformation subclaim of Ground Four, and lodge the remaining portions of the state record; and (5) Within sixty days of the filing of the Answer, Petitioner may file and serve a Reply that responds to the matters and argument set forth in the Answer. (ec)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAMARR BROWN,

12
13
14
15

Case No. CV 15-5079-RSWL (GJS)

Petitioner
v.
KIM HOLLAND,
Respondent.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

16
17

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition

18

and all pleadings, motions, and other documents filed in this action, Respondent’s

19

Motion To Dismiss [Dkt. 28, “Motion”], Petitioner’s Motion for a Rhines stay [Dkt.,

20

31, “Stay Motion”], the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

21

Judge (“Report”), and Petitioner’s Objections to the Report. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

22

636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of

23

those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated.

24

Nothing in the Objections affects or alters the analysis and conclusions set forth

25

in the Report. Having completed its de novo review, the Court accepts the findings

26

and recommendations set forth in the Report. In the Objections (at p. 2 and in

27

appended Motion), Petitioner states that, should the Report be accepted, he elects

28

Option Two as set forth in the Report at p. 11, lines 1-3, namely, to dismiss both

1

Ground Three and the Vargas subclaim of Ground Four of the First Amended

2

Petition and to proceed with the remaining claims, i.e., Grounds One, Two, and the

3

misinformation subclaim of Ground Four of the First Amended Petition.

4

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

5

(1) Respondent’s Motion is GRANTED;

6

(2) Petitioner’s Stay Motion is DENIED;

7

(3) Petitioner’s request to exercise Option Two is GRANTED and the First

8

Amended Petition is deemed amended to delete Ground Three and the Vargas

9

subclaim of Ground Four;

10

(4) Within sixty days of this Order, Respondent shall file and serve an Answer

11

to the First Amended Petition as amended herein, namely, to Grounds One,

12

Two, and the misinformation subclaim of Ground Four, and lodge the

13

remaining portions of the state record; and

14
15

(5) Within sixty days of the filing of the Answer, Petitioner may file and serve a
Reply that responds to the matters and argument set forth in the Answer.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

DATE: 5/25/2017

s/ RONALD S.W. LEW
RONALD S.W. LEW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2