Aguon v. Montgomery et al

Filing 16

ORDER: (1) Adopting 13 Report and Recommendation; (2) Granting 12 Motion to Stay; and (2) Denying Respondent's 10 Motion to Dismiss. This action is stayed until the California Supreme Court rules on Petitioner's pending state habeas petition Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 8/28/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

Download PDF
'' ll_E[) 1 2 VW AUG 29 AH IQ: 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 3:16-cv-02421-BEN-AGS MICHAEL AGUON, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 WARRENL. MONTGOMERY, Warden, 15 ORDER: v. Respondent. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; and 16 17 (3) DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 18 19 20 Petitioner Michael Aguon has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 21 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1). Subsequently, the Honorable Jan M. Adler issued a 22 notice regarding possible dismissal of Petitioner's petition for failure to exhaust state 23 court remedies. (Docket No. 2). Four of the five claims in Petitioner's federal petition 24 have not been exhausted in state court. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure 25 to exhaust. (Docket No. 10). Petitioner responded, requesting a stay under Rhines v. 26 Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (Docket No. 12). 27 28 On June 12, 2017, the Honorable Andrew G. Schopler issued a Report and Recommendation, which recommended granting Petitioner's request for a stay and 3: 16-cv-02421-BEN-AGS ,)/I ', 1 denying Respondent's motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 13). Judge Schopler found that 2 Petitioner is entitled to a Rhines stay. Judge Schopler set a deadline for any party to file 3 objections to the Report and Recommendation, but that deadline has now passed, and 4 neither party has filed any objections. 5 A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a 6 magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 7 § 636(b)(l). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 8 recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 9 However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate if objection is made, but not otherwise." 10 judge's findings and recommendations de novo 11 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane); see also 12 Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor 13 the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 14 that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 15 The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 16 Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 13). Petitioner's request 17 for a stay is GRANTED (Docket No. 12) and Respondent's motion to dismiss for failure 18 to exhaust is DENIED (Docket No. 10). 19 This action is STAYED until the California Supreme Court rules on Petitioner's 20 pending state habeas petition. Petitioner is required to file a status report about his state 21 habeas petition every two months. Petitioner is further ordered to file a final status report 22 within seven (7) days of any ruling on his state habeas petition. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 Dated: August~Ol 7 Rsi'!t:f'T. Benitez United States District Judge 27 28 2 3: l 6-cv-02421-BEN-AGS

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?