Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00501-7/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LEWIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

ROY A. CASTRO, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00501 OWW NEW (DLB) HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #27]

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

ORDER STAYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE

STATUS REPORT 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 25, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition be DENIED and Petitioner’s request for

stay be GRANTED. This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained

notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within ten court

days (plus three days for mailing) of the date of service of the order. The time for filing objections

has passed and no party has objected.

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 finds that the Findings

and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. The petition will be stayed

Case 1:06-cv-00501-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 03/07/07 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 The filing should be titled: “Status Report.” 1

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

pending exhaustion of Petitioner’s state remedies. 

However, the Court will not indefinitely hold the petition in abeyance. Rhines v. Weber, 544

U.S. 269, 277 (2005). Petitioner must inform the Court no later than thirty (30) days after the date of

service of this order the cases that have been filed in state court, the date any cases were filed, and

any outcomes. Further, Petitioner must proceed diligently to pursue his state court remedies and 1

must file a new status report every thirty (90) days thereafter as to the status of the state court

proceedings. Following final action by the state courts, Petitioner will be allowed thirty (30) days to

file a motion for leave to amend the petition to include the newly exhausted claims. Failure to

comply with these instructions and time allowances will result in this Court vacating the stay nunc

pro tunc to the date of this order. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued January 25, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is DENIED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is STAYED pending Petitioner’s exhaustion of state

remedies;

4. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a status report within thirty (30) days of the date of service

of this order advising the court of the cases that have been filed in state court, the date the cases were

filed, and any outcomes;

5. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a new status report every ninety (90) days after filing his

initial status report; and

6. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days time following the final order of the state courts

in which to file a final status report. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00501-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 2