Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02421/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02421-1/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 

ll_E[) 

VW AUG 29 AH IQ: 12 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 MICHAEL AGUON, 

12 Petitioner, 

13 v. 

14 WARRENL. MONTGOMERY, Warden, 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Respondent. 

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02421-BEN-AGS 

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; 

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; 

and 

(3) DENYING RESPONDENT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

20 Petitioner Michael Aguon has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 

21 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1). Subsequently, the Honorable Jan M. Adler issued a 

22 notice regarding possible dismissal of Petitioner's petition for failure to exhaust state 

23 court remedies. (Docket No. 2). Four of the five claims in Petitioner's federal petition 

24 have not been exhausted in state court. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure 

25 to exhaust. (Docket No. 10). Petitioner responded, requesting a stay under Rhines v. 

26 Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (Docket No. 12). 

27 On June 12, 2017, the Honorable Andrew G. Schopler issued a Report and 

28 Recommendation, which recommended granting Petitioner's request for a stay and 

3: 16-cv-02421-BEN-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-02421-BAS-AGS Document 16 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
,)/I ', 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

denying Respondent's motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 13). Judge Schopler found that 

Petitioner is entitled to a Rhines stay. Judge Schopler set a deadline for any party to file 

objections to the Report and Recommendation, but that deadline has now passed, and 

neither party has filed any objections. 

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)(l). "[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, "[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 bane); 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. 

The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 13). Petitioner's request 

for a stay is GRANTED (Docket No. 12) and Respondent's motion to dismiss for failure 

to exhaust is DENIED (Docket No. 10). 

This action is STAYED until the California Supreme Court rules on Petitioner's 

pending state habeas petition. Petitioner is required to file a status report about his state 

habeas petition every two months. Petitioner is further ordered to file a final status report 

within seven (7) days of any ruling on his state habeas petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

25 Dated: August~Ol 7 

26 

Rsi'!t:f'T. Benitez 

United States District Judge 

27 

28 

2 

3: l 6-cv-02421-BEN-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-02421-BAS-AGS Document 16 Filed 08/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2