Gomes Reynaldo v. Arnold

Filing 34

ORDER adopting 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/20/17: Motion to dismiss 14 is denied without prejudice. Motion for stay and abeyance 20 is denied without prejudice. Petitioner shall file, with in thirty days of the date of service of this order, a brief addressing respondent's argument that petitioner's sentence is nineteen years to life, not four years as alleged in the petition. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALFONSO GOMES REYNALDO,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-2182 KJM DB P

v.

ORDER

A. ARNOLD,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas

17
18

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

19

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 17, 2017, 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. Petitioner has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 17, 2017, are adopted in full;

3

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is denied without prejudice;

4

3. Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance (ECF No. 20) is denied without prejudice;

5

4. Petitioner shall file, within thirty days of the date of service of this order, a brief

6

addressing respondent’s argument that petitioner’s sentence is nineteen years to life, not four

7

years as alleged in the petition; and

8
9

5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
DATED: March 20, 2017

10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2