Larry Bailey-Banks v. W.L. Montgomery
Filing
31
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Petitioner's Motion to Stay and Abey Petition 27 , 28 , 30 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/2/2018: Petitioner's motion to stay (ECF Nos. 27 & 28) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling, as explained in the findings and recommendation.(Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
1:15-cv-01839-AWI-MJS (HC)
LARRY BAILEY-BANKS,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
Petitioner, RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY AND
ABEY PETITION
12
v.
13
14
15
(ECF NOS. 27, 28, 30)
W.L. MONTGOMERY,
Respondent.
16
17
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas
19
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his June 7, 2012 conviction
20
for robbery, burglary, accessory after the fact, and receiving stolen property. (ECF No.
21
1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
22
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
23
The assigned Magistrate Judge conducted a preliminary review of the petition and
24
ordered Respondent to file a response. (ECF No. 10.) On May 12, 2016, Respondent
25
filed an answer. (ECF No. 21.) On July 31, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to stay and
26
abey the petition while he exhausted additional claims in state court. (ECF Nos. 27; 28.)
27
Respondent opposes this motion. (ECF No. 29.)
28
On
December
29,
2017,
the
Magistrate
1
Judge
issued
findings
and
1
recommendations to deny Petitioner’s motion to stay. (ECF No. 30.) Petitioner was given
2
fourteen days to file objections. Petitioner did not file objections and the time to do so
3
has passed.
4
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,
5
the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the
6
entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the
7
record and by proper analysis.
8
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1.
10
11
12
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on December
29, 2017 (ECF No. 30) in full; and
2.
Petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF Nos. 27; 28) is DENIED without prejudice
to refiling, as explained in the findings and recommendation.
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
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?