Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00377/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00377-12/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 

27 

28 

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GENNEL EDWARD MILES, JR., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

W.J. SULLIVAN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:19-CV-00377-KJM-DMC-P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with retained counsel, brings this petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules. 

 On September 12, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 

within fourteen days. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 

 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 

of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-00377-KJM-DMC Document 57 Filed 01/13/23 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 

27 

28 

2 

court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The court adds petitioner has shown good 

cause for a stay pending exhaustion of claims in state court, as petitioner “lacked the effective 

assistance of counsel during state postconviction review proceedings.” Cage v. Montgomery, 812 

F. Appx. 679, 680 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005) (stating 

the court must determine good cause before the court exercises its discretion to issue a stay-andabeyance order). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed on September 12, 2022, ECF 

No. 55, are adopted in full; 

 2. Petitioner’s unopposed motion for an order staying this case, ECF No. 52, 

is granted; 

 3. Within 60 days of the date of this order, and every 60 days thereafter until 

further order of this Court, petitioner shall file a report on the status of exhaustion proceedings in 

state court; and 

 4. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge to monitor the 

case and for further proceedings, including lifting the stay upon completion of state court 

exhaustion proceedings. 

DATED: January 12, 2023. 

 

Case 2:19-cv-00377-KJM-DMC Document 57 Filed 01/13/23 Page 2 of 2