Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01244/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01244-9/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304.

On January 13, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 

recommendations to deny Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the 

proceedings to permit him to exhaust state court remedies, which was 

filed on December 2, 2013. The Magistrate Judge further recommended 

that the matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge to schedule 

the deadline for Petitioner to file a traverse to Respondent’s 

ERIK DANIEL GONZALEZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

A. HEDGPETH,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-001244-LJO-BAM-HC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 49)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR A

STAY TO EXHAUST STATE COURT CLAIMS

(DOC. 33)

ORDER SCHEDULING DEADLINE FOR 

PETITIONER TO FILE A TRAVERSE

DEADLNE FOR FILING A TRAVERSE:

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Case 1:12-cv-01244-DAD-SKO Document 51 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 2
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

answer to the petition.1 The findings and recommendations were 

served on all parties on the same date. The findings and 

recommendations advised the parties that objections could be filed 

within thirty days and replies within fourteen days after the filing 

of objections. Although the thirty-day period for the filing of 

objections has passed, no objections have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 

this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having 

carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the report 

and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Thus, the Court will adopt the findings and recommendations in full.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) The findings and recommendations filed on January 13, 2015, 

are ADOPTED in full; and 

2) Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the proceedings to exhaust 

state court remedies is DENIED; and

3) Petitioner may FILE a traverse to the answer previously 

filed by Respondent no later than thirty (30) days after the date of 

service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

In order to avoid delay, the Court will set the deadline for filing the traverse in this order instead of 

remanding the matter to the Magistrate Judge to do so.

Case 1:12-cv-01244-DAD-SKO Document 51 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 2