Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00679/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00679-4/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME I. ESTRADA,

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN BITER, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00679-AWI-GSA-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 20)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 14), 

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

DISCOVERY (ECF No. 9), DISMISSING 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY (ECF 

No. 1), AND DISMISSING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO LIFT STAY (ECF No. 15)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation 

that recommended that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied, Petitioner’s motion for 

discovery be denied without prejudice, Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance be denied as 

moot, and Petitioner’s motion to lift the stay be denied as moot. (ECF No. 20). On November 

20, 2014, the Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that 

any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days after being served with this Findings and 

Recommendation. Respondent was granted two motions for extension of time to file objections. 

On February 17, 2015, Respondent filed his response to the Findings and 

Recommendation, in which he indicated that he does not intend to file objections to the statute of 

Case 1:14-cv-00679-DAD-EPG Document 29 Filed 02/20/15 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

limitations ruling by the Court. (ECF No. 28).

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 concludes that 

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper 

analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendation.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued November 20, 2014, is ADOPTED IN 

FULL;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is DENIED; 

3. Petitioner’s motion for discovery is DENIED without prejudice;

4. Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance is DENIED as moot;

5. Petitioner’s motion to lift the stay is DENIED as moot; and

6. The matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00679-DAD-EPG Document 29 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 2