Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00127/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00127-6/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

RANDY JOE SKAINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0127 LKK GGH P

vs.

BILL LOCKYEAR, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s December

5, 2006, motion to stay proceedings pending exhaustion of additional claims. On December 20,

2006, respondent filed a statement of non-opposition to this motion. Good cause appearing, the

court recommends that petitioner’s motion to stay be granted. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269,

125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005)(district courts have discretion to hold mixed petition in abeyance pending

exhaustion of unexhausted claims).

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00127-LKK-CHS Document 27 Filed 02/01/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's December 5,

2006, motion to stay be granted and this action be administratively closed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 1/31/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

sk127.sta

Case 2:06-cv-00127-LKK-CHS Document 27 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 2