Johnson v. Sisto

Filing 15

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 01/12/09 ORDERING that the show cause order filed on 12/13/08 13 has been discharged by petitioner by his 12/31/08 14 statement of non-opposition. Also, RECO MMENDING that respondent's unopposed request for a stay, filed on 12/19/08 12 be granted, and this matter be administratively closed pending the en banc decision in Hayward v. Marshall. Motion 12 referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. D.K. SISTO, Respondent. / Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings 2007 decision, denying him parole at his second subsequent parole hearing. Upon respondent's request for a stay, on December 24, 2008 (# 13), an order to show cause why this matter should not be stayed in light of the Ninth Circuit's having granted rehearing en banc in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008), issued directing petitioner's response within twenty days. In a timely response, petitioner filed a statement of non-opposition to this matter being administratively stayed pending the outcome in Hayward. In light of petitioner's express nonopposition, the court will now recommend a stay be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the show cause order, filed on December 13, 2008 (#13) has been discharged by petitioner by his December 31, 2008 (# 14) statement of non1 ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID WAYNE JOHNSON, Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2392 GEB GGH P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

opposition. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent's unopposed request for a stay, filed on December 19, 2008 (#12), be granted, and this matter be administratively closed pending the en banc decision in Hayward v. Marshall. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: January 12, 2009 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows ___________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

john2392.ofr

2