Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01354/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01354-3/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

3:19-cv-01354-WQH-MDD

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

MICHAEL D. KANE,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSIE GASTELO,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01354-WQH-MDD

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Josie 

Gastelo (ECF No. 7) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge 

(ECF No. 9).

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 

which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 

Case 3:19-cv-01354-WQH-MDD Document 14 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-01354-WQH-MDD

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

(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

correct.”).

The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. On February 

21, 2020, Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended Petition. 

(ECF No. 12). Petitioner requested a 60-day extension from February 24, 2020 to file an 

amended petition. On March 2, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order denying 

Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended Petition. (ECF No. 13). 

The Order states 

Petitioner’s motion is premature and is DENIED without prejudice. 

Petitioner will have the opportunity to file an amended petition based upon 

the district judge’s ruling on the Report and Recommendation. (See ECF No 

9).

Id. at 2. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the 

submissions of the parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is 

ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Josie Gastelo (ECF 

No. 7) is DENIED. The Court concludes that the Petition is subject to dismissal absent a 

stay because it contains exhausted and unexhausted claims for relief. On or before April 

24, 2020, Petitioner may file a Motion for Stay addressing the three Rhines conditions. In 

the alternative, on or before April 24, 2020, Petitioner may file a Motion for Stay pursuant 

to Kelly and an Amended Petition asserting only the exhausted claim for relief (ground 

two). If Petitioner fails to move for a stay under Rhines or Kelly, the Court shall dismiss 

Petitioner’s unexhausted claims for relief (grounds one, three, and four) and shall proceed 

solely as to Petitioner’s exhausted claim for relief (ground two). 

Dated: 3/3/2020

Case 3:19-cv-01354-WQH-MDD Document 14 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2