Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01886/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01886-1/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

3:19-cv-01886-WQH-RBB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD LEE REEVES, III,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND MADDEN

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01886-WQH-RBB

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Stay filed by Petitioner Donald Lee 

Reeves, III (ECF No. 4) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate 

Judge (ECF No. 11).

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 

which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:19-cv-01886-WQH-WVG Document 14 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-01886-WQH-RBB

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

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 

(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

correct.”).

The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has 

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is 

ADOPTED in its entirety. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 

(9th Cir. 2003) (overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1149) 

(9th Cir. 2001)) and King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009) is GRANTED. 

Petitioner’s Motion for Stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) is DENIED. 

1. On February 10, 2020, Petitioner filed the First Amended Petition. (ECF No.

13). Petitioner has deleted the unexhausted claims (grounds seven and eight) of

the original Petition.

2. Petitioner shall file a status report every sixty days from the date of this Order to

update the Court on Petitioner’s progress in exhausting claims seven and eight of

the Petition.

3. Petitioner is required to lodge with the Court a file-stamped copy of each statecourt petition and, as soon as any state court rules on any of his petitions, a copy

of the ruling.

4. If Petitioner does not obtain relief from the state courts, the First Amended

Petition should be held in abeyance until thirty days after the California Supreme

Court denies Petitioner’s unexhausted claims. During that thirty-day period,

Petitioner shall file a Motion to Amend the First Amended Petition to add the

newly exhausted claims and shall lodge a proposed Second Amended Petition.

In the motion, Petitioner shall demonstrate that the claims are timely or relate

Case 3:19-cv-01886-WQH-WVG Document 14 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-01886-WQH-RBB

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

back to the original exhausted claims. Petitioner shall attach a copy of the 

California Supreme Court's ruling on his state-court petition. 

5. Petitioner is warned that the failure to strictly comply with the above

requirements may result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute or

comply with court orders, or the stay being lifted and the Court proceeding to

adjudicate only the six exhausted claims in the First Amended Petition.

Dated: February 11, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01886-WQH-WVG Document 14 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3