Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01451/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01451-1/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 

16cv1451 GPC (NLS) 

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 

KENT KEIGWIN, 

Petitioner,

v. 

J. LIZARRAGA, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 16cv1451 GPC (NLS) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER 

DENYING MOTION FOR STAY 

AND ABEYANCE AS MOOT 

[Dkt. No. 3] 

 Petitioner Kent Keigwin filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Petition) in this 

court on June 10, 2016. He also filed a motion for stay and abeyance on that day, asking 

this court to stay the Petition pending a final decision by the California Supreme Court 

for unexhausted claims he raised in the Petition. In the response to the motion for stay 

and abeyance, Respondent notes that the California Supreme Court issued a decision on 

July 13, 2016 denying Keigwin’s habeas petition filed in that court. See Opp’n, Ex. A. 

Respondent notes that the stay and abeyance issue is now moot. 

 Because the California Supreme Court has now ruled on the issues Keigwin raised, 

this court RECOMMENDS that the district judge DENY AS MOOT the motion for 

stay and abeyance. This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge 

is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 3:16-cv-01451-GPC-NLS Document 10 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

16cv1451 GPC (NLS) 

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

IT IS ORDERED that no later than August 31, 2016, any party to this action may 

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections must be filed with 

the court and served on all parties no later than September 7, 2016. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

 Once the district judge rules on this Report and Recommendation, this court will 

issue a scheduling order for responding to the Petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 15, 2016 

Case 3:16-cv-01451-GPC-NLS Document 10 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 2