Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02753/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02753-1/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

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 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY - 1

2:06-CV-2753-RRB-KJM P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:06-CV-2753-RRB-KJM P

ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Vincent Pena (“Plaintiff”), a state

prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 17, 2007, Magistrate Judge Kimberly J, Mueller

filed Findings and Recommendations (Docket 8) herein, which were

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties

that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be

filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed Objections to the

Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations at Docket 9.

JOSEPH VINCENT PENA,

Petitioner,

vs.

TONY HEDGPETH, Warden,

et al.,

Respondents.

Case 2:06-cv-02753-AWT Document 11 Filed 10/03/07 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 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY - 2

2:06-CV-2753-RRB-KJM P

Inasmuch as the Court concludes the issues before it are

based in law, i.e., legal disputes; and, in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, the

Court has conducted a de novo review of the relevant pleadings

filed in this matter. Having carefully and thoroughly reviewed the

same, the court finds the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations

at Docket 8 to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations at Docket 8, filed

on April 17, 2007, are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s December 6, 2006, Motion to Stay at

Docket 3 is DENIED; and

3. Petitioner is to inform the Court, within ninety

days, whether he wishes to proceed on his exhausted claims; or,

dismiss this matter without prejudice.

ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02753-AWT Document 11 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 2