(HC)Sanford v. Bird

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/27/2024 ADOPTING 30 Findings and Recommendations in Full, GRANTING 25 Motion to Dismiss, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 27 Motion for Stay, and DIRECTING petitioner to imme diately proceed to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a case status report every 60 days, advising the court of the progress of the state habeas petition, and within 30 days of a decision by the state's highest court exhausting all new claims, they must notify this court of the decision and at that time request a lift of the stay and file an Amended Petition. CASE ADMINSTRATIVELY CLOSED. (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Andrew E. Sanford,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:22-cv-01304 KJM AC P

v.

ORDER

Mcvay,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an 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 January 4, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

20
21

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

22

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 30. Neither party filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

24
25

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

26

de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law

27

by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court

28

/////
1

1

. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

2

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 4, 2024 (ECF No. 30), are adopted.

5

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED to the extent that Claims

6

Six and Seven, and the putative claims identified in the attachment to the petition, are dismissed

7

without prejudice as unexhausted and otherwise DENIED.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

3. Petitioner’s motion for a stay (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part
as follows:
a. DENIED as to the request for a stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005);
and
b. GRANTED as to the request for a stay under Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th
Cir. 2003).
4. Claims Six and Seven of the petition, and the putative claims listed at ECF No. 1

15

p. 19, are dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted and Claims One through Five of the

16

petition are stayed under Kelly.

17

5. Petitioner is directed to immediately proceed to exhaust his state remedies.

18

6. Petitioner is directed to file a case status report every sixty days, advising the court of

19

the progress of his state habeas petition.

20

7. Petitioner is directed that, within thirty days of a decision by the state’s highest court

21

exhausting his new claims, he must notify this court of the decision and at that time request a lift

22

of the stay and file an amended petition.

23
24

8. The Clerk of the Court is direct to administratively close this case.
DATED: March 27, 2024.

25
26
27
28
2