Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00459/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00459-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM A. ROMERO, No. CIV S-04-0459-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

D. RUNNELS,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition 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 Eastern District of California local rules.

On August 23, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

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

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Petitioner has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. 

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-00459-MCE-CMK Document 43 Filed 09/29/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 23, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. The December 5, 2005, order (Doc. 23) is vacated;

3. Petitioner’s stay-and-abeyance motion (Doc. 15) is granted based on Kelly v.

Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003);

4. These proceedings are stayed and consideration of the instant petition, containing

only exhausted claims, is held in abeyance pending exhaustion in state court of petitioner’s DNA

claim;

5. Petitioner is directed to inform this court in writing of the state court’s decision,

and to file a motion in this court to lift the stay and to amend the petition to include the newly

exhausted claim, within 30 days of the state court’s decision; 

6. The April 6, 2006, order (Doc. 34) is vacated;

7. Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 29) is denied without prejudice as

premature; and

8. Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration (Docs. 38 & 41) are denied as moot. 

DATED: September 28, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00459-MCE-CMK Document 43 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2