Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01613/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01613-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIAMON ANTWUAN BASPED,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1613 GEB KJM P

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has requested that the court stay this matter so

that he can exhaust state court remedies with respect to all of the claims in his petition except

claim 1. In order to obtain a stay, petitioner must show good cause for his failure to exhaust

earlier. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). Petitioner has not done so. Therefore, IT

IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s request for a stay be denied, and respondents

be ordered to file their answer to claim one in the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

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 twenty

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 

Case 2:07-cv-01613-GEB-CHS Document 6 Filed 05/12/08 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

2

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that 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). 

DATED: May 9, 2008. 

1

basp1613.sty

Case 2:07-cv-01613-GEB-CHS Document 6 Filed 05/12/08 Page 2 of 2