Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BARRERA v. MUNIZ, 2:14-cv-2260 JAM DAD P. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20151105b04 Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 23, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommenda
More

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On July 23, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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. On August 17, 2015, the magistrate judge granted petitioner a thirty-day extension of time to file any objections. That time period has now expired. To date, neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 23, 2015, are adopted; and

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is granted;

3. Petitioner's renewed motion for a stay and abeyance under the procedure outlined in the Supreme Court's decision in Rhines (Doc. No. 18) is denied; and

4. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner is directed to file an amended petition containing only his exhausted Claims (1) and (2). Petitioner may elect to proceed on his fully exhausted Claims (1) and (2) or he may file with his amended petition a motion for a stay pursuant to the Kelly procedure.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer