Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01244/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01244-12/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERICK DANIEL GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

A. HEDGPETH,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01244-LJO-BAM HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 

DENIAL OF MOTION FOR STAY TO 

PERMIT EXHAUSTION AND DIRECTING 

PETITIONER TO FILE A TRAVERSE 

WITHIN 45 DAYS OF THIS ORDER

(Doc. 49) 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.

On January 13, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations in which she 

recommended that the Court deny Petitioner's motion for a stay to exhaust additional state claims

and order Petitioner to file a traverse to Respondent's answer filed November 8, 2013 (Doc. 31). 

The findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties, provided that objections could 

be served within thirty days and replies within fourteen days after the filing of any objections. 

Despite multiple orders granting Petitioner extensions of time to file objections, neither party has 

filed objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having carefully reviewed the 

entire file de novo and considered Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the findings and 

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Case 1:12-cv-01244-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 07/02/15 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

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS adoption of the findings and recommendations that 

the Court deny Petitioner's motion for a stay to permit exhaustion of additional state claims. 

Petitioner is DIRECTED to file his traverse, if any, no later than forty-five days from the date of this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01244-DAD-SKO Document 55 Filed 07/02/15 Page 2 of 2