Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01403/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01403-1/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

3:16-cv-01403-BEN-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOCORRO VIDAL COLIN,

Petitioner,

v.

JUAN TORRIE,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01403-BEN-AGS

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING MOTION TO STAY; 

and

(3) ORDERING PETITIONER TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY HER 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY

Petitioner Socorro Vidal Colin filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 on June 8, 2016. (Docket No. 1). Subsequently, on June 13, 2016, the 

Honorable Ruben B. Brooks issued a notice regarding possible dismissal of Petitioner’s 

petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. (Docket No. 2). Petitioner then filed 

a motion to stay the federal proceedings while she returns to state court to exhaust the 

unexhausted claims. (Docket No. 4). Respondent filed an opposition, but Petitioner 

chose not to reply.

Case 3:16-cv-01403-BEN-AGS Document 13 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-01403-BEN-AGS

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

On December 23, 2016, the Honorable Andrew G. Schopler issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending denial of Petitioner’s motion to stay and issuance of an 

order to show cause why Petitioner’s petition should not be dismissed as untimely. 

(Docket No. 12). “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended 

disposition, a party may serve and file written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The 

deadline to object has now passed, and neither party has filed any objections. For reasons 

that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 

the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01403-BEN-AGS Document 13 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-01403-BEN-AGS

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

The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 12). Petitioner’s motion 

to stay is DENIED. (Docket No. 4). See Blake v. Baker, 745 F.3d 977, 981-82 (9th Cir. 

2014) (“[R]outinely granting stays would undermine the AEDPA’s goals of encouraging 

finality and streamlining federal habeas proceedings.”). 

For the reasons discussed in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner is 

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why her petition should not be dismissed as untimely. 

A response to the order to show cause is due by March 6, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01403-BEN-AGS Document 13 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3