Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01286/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01286-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 

KENNETH O. OWENS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. 2:15-cv-1286 KJM GGH 

ORDER 

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

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On February 8, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 15. Petitioner has 

not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 

602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 

novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01286-DJC-AC Document 16 Filed 03/21/16 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

After the magistrate judge issued the findings and recommendations, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that completely unexhausted habeas petitions may be 

stayed if the criteria for a stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) are met. Mena v. 

Long, _ F.3d _ , 2016 WL 625405 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2016). Good cause appearing, this 

matter will be referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further consideration in light of 

Mena. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 8, 2016, are not adopted; and 

 2. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further consideration 

in light of Mena v. Long, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 625405 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2016). 

DATED: March 18, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01286-DJC-AC Document 16 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 2