Armstrong v. Soto
Filing
13
ORDER Adopting 11 Findings and Recommendations to Grant 3 Motion to Stay Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/22/16. CASE STAYED. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRUCE ARMSTRONG,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 1:15-cv-01109-DAD-MJS
v.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT
MOTION TO STAY PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
JOHN SOTO,
15
Respondent.
(Doc. Nos. 3, 11)
16
17
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
19
20
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by counsel.
On July 6, 2015, petitioner filed this petition. (Doc. No. 1.) Three days later, petitioner
21
22
filed the instant motion to stay these proceedings while he sought exhaust his claims for
23
ineffective assistance of counsel and juror misconduct in state court. (Doc. No. 3.)
On September 21, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
24
25
recommendations, including a recommendation to grant petitioner’s motion to stay the petition
26
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the decision in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (Doc.
27
No. 11.) No objections have been filed to the findings and recommendations.
28
/////
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
2
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
3
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1.
6
The September 21, 2015 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 11) are
ADOPTED IN FULL;
7
2.
8
Petitioner’s motion for stay (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED, and the instant action
shall be administratively stayed; and
9
3.
Petitioner is directed to file a motion to lift the stay within thirty (30) days of the
10
California Supreme Court issuing a final order resolving petitioner’s unexhausted
11
claims.
12
Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with this order may result the dismissal of the
13
petition. See Local Rule 110.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
18
Dated:
January 22, 2016
DALE A. DROZD
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?