Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01772/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01772-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY L. SCHERMERHORN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-1029 DFL GGH P

vs.

BILL LOCKYER, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiffs are nine state prisoners proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 11, 2006, the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California transferred this action to this court. The court has separately

issued an order finding that each plaintiff should proceeding separately on his own claim.

On May 31, 2006, and June 6, 2006, plaintiffs filed motions to stay this action

pending the outcome of a request for reconsideration addressed to the Northern District of their

order to transfer this action. The pending request for reconsideration does not constitute good

cause to stay proceedings in this court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to

file a copy of this order in the 8 new actions opened for each plaintiff;

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01772-JKS-GGH Document 14 Filed 08/10/06 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

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs’ motions to stay filed May 31,

2006, and June 6, 2006, be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 8/9/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

sch1029.56

Case 2:06-cv-01772-JKS-GGH Document 14 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 2