Rivera v. Peery
Filing
30
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/26/2017 DENYING without prejudice 27 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Petition and RECOMMENDING 28 Motion to Stay be granted; Clerk be directed to a dministratively close this case; and Petitioner be ordered to either file a motion for leave to file an amended petition or file notice that Petitioner will proceed on the original petition within 30 days of exhaustion of state court remedies. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VINCENT RIVERA,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-0856 KJM CKD P
v.
ORDER AND
S. PEERY,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Respondent.
16
Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
17
18
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Shortly after petitioner filed his traverse, he filed a motion
19
seeking leave to amend his petition and to stay these proceedings while he exhausts state court
20
remedies with respect to additional claims.
Good cause appearing, the court will recommend that petitioner’s request for a stay be
21
22
granted pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2003), and that this action
23
be stayed while petitioner exhausts state court remedies with respect to his new claims.1 Pursuant
24
to Kelly, petitioner’s motion for leave to amend will be denied without prejudice to renewal after
25
he has exhausted state court remedies. Petitioner is informed that, at this point, the court makes
26
no ruling as to whether any claim not presented in his original petition for writ of habeas corpus is
27
28
1
In his opposition to petitioner’s motion for leave to amend and opposition to petitioner’s motion
for a stay, respondent does not object to a stay being granted pursuant to Kelly.
1
1
timely under 28. U.S.C. § 2244(d). Such a determination will be made if and when petitioner
2
files a motion for leave to amend and then the limitations issue is raised by respondent either in
3
an opposition to a motion to amend or a motion to dismiss.
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to file an
5
amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 27) is denied without prejudice to renewal
6
after he has exhausted state court remedies with respect to all claims to be presented in any
7
amended petition; and
8
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
9
1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay (ECF No. 28) be granted.
10
2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close this case;
11
3. Petitioner be ordered to either file a motion for leave to file an amended petition for
12
writ of habeas corpus along with the proposed amended petition, or file notice that petitioner will
13
proceed on the original petition for writ of habeas corpus within 30 days of the exhaustion of state
14
court remedies concerning any claim petitioner may wish to present in an amended habeas
15
petition.
16
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
17
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
18
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
19
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
20
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
21
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
22
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
23
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
24
Dated: October 26, 2017
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
1
rive0856.sty
2
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?