Cooper v. Jones

Filing 39

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/13/17 ORDERING that the The FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 38 filed 2/13/17, are ADOPTED in full with the exception that it will be Plaintiff, rather than Defendant, who will be required to n otify the court at the conclusion of the state court proceedings and to address, initially, whether this action should proceed or be dismissed. Defendant's MOTION to STAY 34 is GRANTED. This action is STAYED pending final resolution of Plain tiff's related state court case, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2011-00111910. Within thirty days after final resolution of the above-noted state court case, Plaintiff shall file and serve a statement so informing this court, toge ther with a supported statement addressing whether this federal action should proceed and, if so, on what grounds; defendant shall file and serve a responsive statement within twenty-one days after the filing date of Plaintiff's statement. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY COOPER,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-0453 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

K. JONES,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

18

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On February 13, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

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. ECF No. 38. Neither party

23

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

25

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

26

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed

27

the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

28

the proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 13, 2017, are adopted in full with

3

the exception that it will be plaintiff, rather than defendant, who will be required to notify the

4

court at the conclusion of the state court proceedings and to address, initially, whether this action

5

should proceed or be dismissed.

6

2. Defendant’s motion to stay this action, ECF No. 34, is granted.

7

3. This action is stayed pending final resolution of plaintiff’s related state court case,

8
9

Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2011-00111910.
4. Within thirty days after final resolution of the above-noted state court case, plaintiff

10

shall file and serve a statement so informing this court, together with a supported statement

11

addressing whether this federal action should proceed and, if so, on what grounds; defendant shall

12

file and serve a responsive statement within twenty-one days after the filing date of plaintiff’s

13

statement.

14

DATED: March 13, 2017

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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