Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01109/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01109-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE ARMSTRONG,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN SOTO,

Respondent.

No. 1:15-cv-01109-DAD-MJS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT 

MOTION TO STAY PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

(Doc. Nos. 3, 11)

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by counsel.

On July 6, 2015, petitioner filed this petition. (Doc. No. 1.) Three days later, petitioner 

filed the instant motion to stay these proceedings while he sought exhaust his claims for 

ineffective assistance of counsel and juror misconduct in state court. (Doc. No. 3.) 

On September 21, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, including a recommendation to grant petitioner’s motion to stay the petition 

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the decision in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (Doc. 

No. 11.) No objections have been filed to the findings and recommendations.

/////

Case 1:15-cv-01109-DAD-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/25/16 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

2

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 concludes that the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The September 21, 2015 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 11) are 

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Petitioner’s motion for stay (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED, and the instant action 

shall be administratively stayed; and 

3. Petitioner is directed to file a motion to lift the stay within thirty (30) days of the 

California Supreme Court issuing a final order resolving petitioner’s unexhausted 

claims.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with this order may result the dismissal of the 

petition. See Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2016 

 DALE A. DROZD

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01109-DAD-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2