Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00454/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00454-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JAMES COFFMAN,

Petitioner, 2:06-cv-0454-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

DAVID RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent. 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 General Order No. 262.

On December 26, 2006, 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 twenty days. 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:

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00454-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 02/12/07 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 26, 2006, are adopted in

full;

2. Respondent’s April 20, 2006, motion to dismiss is denied;

3. Petitioner’s May 11, 2006, motion for a stay and abeyance is granted, and the

petition for writ of habeas corpus is stayed pending exhaustion of claims one and four in state

court;

4. Petitioner is required to file a state court petition setting forth claims one and

four within thirty days; 

5. Petitioner is required to inform this court within thirty days of a state court

decision with regard to claims one and four; and

6. Failure to follow the timelines set forth in any order granting a stay is grounds

for lifting of the stay, striking the unexhausted claims, and this matter proceeding only as to the

previously exhausted claims, claims two and three.

Dated: February 9, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00454-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 2