Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00172/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00172-7/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

KENNETH JAMES WEST,

Petitioner,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

No. 1:22-cv-00172-ADA-CDB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT 

PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

STAY

(ECF Nos. 30, 31)

Petitioner Kenneth James West (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) On July 22, 2022, 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the first amended petition. (ECF No. 19.) On November 30, 

2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations granting Respondent’s 

motion and dismissing, without prejudice, Petitioner’s first amended petition. (ECF No. 27). On 

March 7, 2023, the Court issued an order adopting the assigned Magistrate Judge’s findings and 

recommendations and informed Petitioner he could request a stay of the petition in this Court to 

exhaust claims in state court. (ECF No. 29.)

On March 31, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion to stay this action. (ECF No. 30.) Respondent 

did not file a response to Petitioner’s motion to stay. On April 21, 2023, the assigned Magistrate 

Judge issued findings and recommendations granting Petitioner’s motion to stay and holding these 

Case 1:22-cv-00172-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 2
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

proceedings in abeyance while Petitioner exhausted his claims in state court. (ECF No. 31.) The 

findings and recommendations advised Respondent that he must file any objections within 14 days 

after service of the order and that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 

the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id. at 5 (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).) Respondent did not 

file objections or any other response to the findings and recommendations, and the deadline to do 

so has passed. On May 5, 2023, Petitioner filed a notice of compliance of order to timely file a 

petition in California state court. (ECF No. 32.) 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 

review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, this Court concludes the findings 

and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The April 21, 2023, Findings and Recommendations, (ECF No. 31), are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s motion for stay, (ECF No. 30), is GRANTED and these proceedings will be 

held in abeyance while Petitioner exhausts his unexhausted claims in state court; and

3. Petitioner is directed to file in this Court, within 30 days after the filing date of the state 

court’s order finally resolving Petitioner’s unexhausted claims, a motion to lift the stay in 

this proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00172-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 2