Cooper v. Jones
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:14-cv-0453 KJM AC P
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil
rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 13, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 38. Neither party
has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed
the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 13, 2017, are adopted in full with
the exception that it will be plaintiff, rather than defendant, who will be required to notify the
court at the conclusion of the state court proceedings and to address, initially, whether this action
should proceed or be dismissed.
2. Defendant’s motion to stay this action, ECF No. 34, is granted.
3. This action is stayed pending final resolution of plaintiff’s related state court case,
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2011-00111910.
4. Within thirty days after final resolution of the above-noted state court case, plaintiff
shall file and serve a statement so informing this court, together 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
DATED: March 13, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?