Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01268/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01268-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER STRONG,

Petitioner,

v.

TAMMY FOSS,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-01268 KJM GGH P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE 

RHINES STAY

The undersigned will repeat the introduction to the Order to Show Cause previously 

issued in order to give context to these Findings and Recommendations.

Petitioner has filed a traverse in this case which implicates exhaustion. That is, petitioner 

is presently seeking relief in a case pending before the California Court of Appeal, in which he 

seeks retroactive application of Cal. Penal Codes sections 188, 189. See Cal. Penal Code section 

1170.95, permitting application of retroactive relief of the above sections in defined 

circumstances. Specifically, petitioner seeks application of Cal. Penal Code section 189 which 

restricts the formerly broader aspects of the felony murder rule. Because of the new statutory 

sections and ongoing proceedings in state court, petitioner has opted not to brief his previous

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-01268-DJC-CKD Document 23 Filed 02/27/20 Page 1 of 3
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

contentions regarding application of the felony murder rule. The undersigned ordered the parties 

to give their respective positions on the entry of a Rhines1 stay.

In the parties’ filings required by the OSC, respondent indicated that she did not believe a 

federal claim was possible, but in the alternative, provided that she did not object to a Rhines 

stay. Petitioner, while expressing some confusion as to the status of the appeal pending in the 

California Court of Appeal, indicated that he was asking for the Rhines stay.

Given that respondent does not object to the requested Rhines stay, and the undersigned 

being unwilling to foreclose at least an attempted statement of a new claim in the future, the 

undersigned recommends that the Rhines stay be entered.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The case be stayed and the petition be held in abeyance pending full exhaustion in state 

court; and 

2. In the event these Findings and Recommendations are adopted, the parties shall file a 

status report no later than six months after the adoption of these Findings and Recommendations

detailing the status of the state proceedings; or, if the state proceedings are finally resolved within 

the six month period, petitioner shall file a request to lift the stay within fourteen days after final 

resolution. Further orders will issue depending on the status of the state proceedings.

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 seven 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 response to the objections shall be 

served and filed within three days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that 

////

////

////

////

 1 Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005).

Case 2:19-cv-01268-DJC-CKD Document 23 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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).2

Dated: February 27, 2020

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 2 The shortened time for objections and reply is given in that the parties do not presently object to 

the Rhines stay.

Case 2:19-cv-01268-DJC-CKD Document 23 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 3