Chatman v. Evans

Filing 72

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/3/16 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 10/15/15 69 are ADOPTED in part; Petitioner's MOTION to AMEND 65 is GRANTED; Petitioner's MOTION to STAY this action pending exhaustion of state remedies as to new claims in the second amended petition ECF No. 66 is DENIED as moot; and This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY A. CHATMAN,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:10-cv-0264 KJM CKD P

v.

ORDER

M. S. EVANS,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this application for a writ

17
18

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 15, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20
21

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Respondent has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations and petitioner has filed a reply to respondent’s

24

objections.

25

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the

27

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

28

/////
1

1

In his reply to respondent’s objections, petitioner represents that the California Supreme

2

Court has denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus, that all of the claims raised in his second

3

amended petition are now exhausted, and that his motion to stay is therefore moot. The motion to

4

stay will therefore be denied as moot.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 15, 2015, are adopted in part;

7

2. Petitioner’s motion to amend (ECF No. 65) is granted;

8

3. Petitioner’s motion to stay this action pending exhaustion of state remedies as to new

9
10
11

claims in the second amended petition (ECF No. 66) is denied as moot; and
4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
DATED: February 3, 2016.

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2