Soojian v. Lizarraga
ORDER Adopting 40 Findings and Recommendations, Denying 36 Motion to Stay, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/7/17. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:16-cv-00254-AWI-SAB-HC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
(ECF No. 40)
JOE A. LIZARRAGA,
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
18 U.S.C. § 2254.
On March 21, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that
20 recommended denying Petitioner’s motion to stay. (ECF No. 40). This Findings and
21 Recommendation was served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections were to be
22 filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. On April 20, 2017, Petitioner filed
23 timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. (ECF No. 41).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
25 a de novo review of the matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s
26 objections, the Court concludes that the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the
1 record and proper analysis.1 Petitioner has failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to
2 exhaust the unexhausted claims. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
3 the alleged ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel in failing to review the complete
4 lower court record is divorced from the non-exhaustion of claims 7 and 9 regarding prosecutorial
5 misconduct and cumulative error, respectively. The Court further agrees with the Magistrate
6 Judge’s conclusion that appellate counsel was not ineffective in failing to bring the meritless
7 prosecutorial misconduct claim. A Rhines stay is not warranted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The March 21, 2017 Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 40) is ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF No. 36) is DENIED;
3. Petitioner is allowed to proceed with the exhausted claims of the petition;
4. Petitioner may file a traverse within THIRTY (30) days from the date of this order;
5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 Dated: June 7, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
Although the Magistrate Judge erroneously identified the crimes of conviction, that error has no impact on the
28 analysis regarding the propriety of staying the action to permit Petitioner to exhaust his unexhausted claims.
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?