Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-03015/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-03015-2/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 

11cv3015-JAH (LL)

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

WILLIE ULYSSES GRANT,

Petitioner,

v. 

RICK HILL, Warden, et al., 

Respondents.

Case No.: 11cv3015-JAH (LL)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 54);

(2) GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO STAY AND ABEY

(Doc. No. 53)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Willie Ulysses Grant filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 23, 2011. Doc. No. 1. Pending before the Court is 

Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed by the 

Honorable Judge Linda Lopez, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending the Motion 

to Stay be granted. After careful consideration of the pleadings, for the reasons set forth 

below, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report in its entirety and GRANTS

the motion to stay.

//

Case 3:11-cv-03015-JAH-DEB Document 55 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

11cv3015-JAH (LL)

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

BACKGROUND1

On September 9, 2019, Petitioner filed the Motion to Stay presently before the Court. 

Doc. No. 53. Petitioner requested the Court stay the proceedings while Petitioner exhausts 

grounds fifteen and sixteen of his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 

California Supreme Court, or in the alternative, to find those grounds for relief are 

technically exhausted and excuse any procedural bar. Id. On October 24, 2019, Judge Linda 

Lopez issued a thorough Report and Recommendation recommending this Court grant

Petitioner’s Motion to Stay. Doc. No. 54. There, Judge Lopez found Petitioner satisfied the 

requirements to stay and abey his “mixed” federal habeas petition containing both 

exhausted and unexhausted claims while Petitioner returns to state court to exhaust 

previously unexhausted claims. See Doc. No. 54 at 8-12 (citing Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 

269 (2005)). Specifically, Judge Lopez found Petitioner had good cause to justify his 

failure to exhaust the two additional claims in state court, the claims are not plainly 

meritless, and that nothing in the records indicates that Petitioner intended to cause any 

delay with respect to the unexhausted claims. Id. Further, the Report recommends this 

Court deny Petitioner’s request to treat the unexhausted claims as technically exhausted, 

finding that Petitioner has not shown that a return to state court would definitely be futile. 

Id. at 7 (citing Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996)).

Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due November 7, 2019. Id.

at 12. Respondents have not filed any objections.

DISCUSSION

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, 

 

1 The underlying facts set forth in the Report is adopted in toto and referenced as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:11-cv-03015-JAH-DEB Document 55 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

11cv3015-JAH (LL)

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

“[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United 

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

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties 

themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. When no objections are 

filed, the Court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge's findings of fact and 

decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 

196, 206 (9th Cir.1974); Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal. 2001). 

As such, the Court assumes the correctness of the Magistrate Judge's factual findings 

and adopts them in full. The Court has conducted a de novo review, independently 

reviewing the Report and all relevant papers submitted by the parties and finds that the 

Report provides a cogent analysis of the issues presented in the motion. The Court 

concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the Petitioner meets the standard 

for a stay and abeyance in order to exhaust previously unexhausted claims in state court.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) The findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge presented in the Report

and Recommendation are ADOPTED in its entirety, (Doc. No. 54);

(2) Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and Abey the First Amended Petition is

GRANTED, (Doc. No. 53);

(3) Petitioner’s request to treat his two claims not yet presented to the California

Supreme Court as technically exhausted is DENIED;

(4) Petitioner is directed to:

(a) file an exhaustion petition in state court within twenty-one days of the stay;

(b) file a status report every ninety days that details his progress in exhausting

his two claims in state court;

Case 3:11-cv-03015-JAH-DEB Document 55 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

11cv3015-JAH (LL)

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

(c) within thirty days of the state court’s decision resolving the claims, file a 

motion requesting that the stay be lifted and that he be granted leave to file a 

Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254 that shall include a proposed Second Amended Petition containing all 

grounds for relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2020

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-03015-JAH-DEB Document 55 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4