Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01211/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01211-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDRIC L. DANIELS,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVE DAVEY,

Respondent.

No. 1:15-cv-01211-DAD-MJS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT MOTION 

TO STAY PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS 

(Doc. Nos. 2, 6)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 5, 2015, petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus along 

with a motion to stay the petition to allow for the exhaustion of his claims in state court. (Doc. 

Nos. 1–2.) On September 22, 2015, the court issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the motion be granted and that the matter be stayed pursuant to the decisions 

in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002) and King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). 

(Doc. No. 6.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 

Case 1:15-cv-01211-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

petitioner’s objections1, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The September 22, 2015 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 6) are ADOPTED 

IN FULL;

2. Petitioner’s motion for stay (Doc. No. 2) is granted, and the instant action shall be 

administratively stayed;

3. Petitioner is ordered to file an amended petition containing only claims already 

exhausted within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order;

4. Petitioner is directed to file a motion to lift the stay within thirty (30) days of the 

California Supreme Court issuing a final order resolving petitioner’s unexhausted claims; and

5. Petitioner is directed to file an amended habeas petition containing all claims, including 

newly exhausted claims, with his motion to lift the stay.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with this order may result the dismissal of the 

petition. See Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2016 

 DALE A. DROZD

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

 In his objections petitioner states that he desires to include additional exhausted claims that 

were not set forth in his original federal petition when he files an amended petition following

exhaustion. (Doc. No. 7.) The court notes that petitioner is the master of his complaint (or 

petition in this case), and to the extent the additional claims he now refers to are properly 

exhausted, he is free to allege them in any amended petition he elects to file in this action. 

However, the court also notes that respondent will, thereafter, have the opportunity to present any 

applicable defenses to the new claims, including any argument that those claims should not relate 

back to the original petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 or are otherwise untimely 

under the one-year statute of limitations provided for in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Case 1:15-cv-01211-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case 1:15-cv-01211-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/25/16 Page 3 of 3