Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01857/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01857-4/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- 18cv1857-MMA (JLB)

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 

RYAN MICHAEL MORRISON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. 

Case No.: 18cv1857-MMA (JLB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 

[Doc. No. 18] 

DENYING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS; 

[Doc. No. 12] 

GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

RENEWED REQUEST FOR A STAY 

AND ABEYANCE 

Petitioner Ryan Michael Morrison (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro 

se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (the “Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

See Doc. No. 1. Two months later, Petitioner filed a motion for stay and abeyance 

pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). See Doc. No. 4. The Court adopted 

the report and recommendation of the assigned magistrate judge and denied Petitioner’s 

motion for stay and abeyance without prejudice. See Doc. No. 7. Respondent Joe A. 

Lizarraga (“Respondent”), Warden of Mule Creek State Prison, now moves to dismiss the 

Petition on the grounds that Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies with 

Case 3:18-cv-01857-MMA-JLB Document 19 Filed 02/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
 -2- 18cv1857-MMA (JLB)

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

respect to all claims in the petition. See Doc. No. 12. Petitioner filed an opposition 

wherein he renews his request for a stay and abeyance under Rhines. See Doc. No. 17. 

 The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Burkhardt for 

preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Judge 

Burkhardt has issued a detailed and well-reasoned report recommending that the Court 

deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss and grant Petitioner’s renewed request for a Rhines

stay. See Doc. No. 18. 

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1), the Court 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 [judge].” 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than January 20, 2020. 

See Doc. No. 18 at 11. To date, no objections have been filed.1

 

 Accordingly, the Court finds that Judge Burkhardt has issued an accurate Report 

and well-reasoned recommendation that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied and 

that Petitioner’s renewed request for a stay and abeyance be granted. The Court hereby 

ORDERS as follows: 

1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety; 

2. The Court DENIES Respondent’s motion to dismiss; 

3. The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s renewed request for a Rhines stay; 

4. This action is stayed pending exhaustion of Claim Two for ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel; 

5. Petitioner must file, every 90 days starting with the filing date of this Order, a 

status report that details Petitioner’s progress in the California state courts; 

                                               

1

 The Clerk of Court served Petitioner with a copy of the Report and Recommendation via U.S. 

Mail on March 25, 2019. See Doc. No. 18. 

Case 3:18-cv-01857-MMA-JLB Document 19 Filed 02/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
 -3- 18cv1857-MMA (JLB)

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

6. Petitioner must file, within 30 days of a final decision by the California Supreme 

Court, a motion requesting that the stay be lifted and that leave to file a First 

Amended Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be granted. Petitioner must 

include a proposed First Amended Petition with that filing; and 

7. The Clerk of Court is instructed to administratively close the case until further 

order of the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2020

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-01857-MMA-JLB Document 19 Filed 02/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3