Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00997/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00997-2/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 ROACH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0997 GEB EFB P

vs.

CURRY, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On May 25, 2007, petitioner filed a motion to stay the proceedings and hold his

petition in abeyance pending state court review of his claims. On July 26, 2007, respondents

filed a motion to dismiss the petition as premature because the validity of petitioner’s sentence is

currently being reviewed by the state courts. Respondents filed a reply in which they state that

they had no objection to the court staying petitioner’s petition and holding the petition in

abeyance until all claims are exhausted by the state courts. Respondent submits that such a stay

should be conditioned upon petitioner seeking full exhaustion of his claims at the earliest

possible opportunity and then seeking to lift the stay in this case within 30 days after completing

state-court exhaustion. 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00997-GEB-CHS Document 18 Filed 02/13/08 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 RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s May 25, 2007, motion for stay and abeyance be granted and that

petitioner be directed to pursue his claims at the earliest possible opportunity and seek a lift of

the stay within 30 days of completing exhaustion of those claims; and

2. Respondents’ July 26, 2007, motion to dismiss be denied accordingly. 

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 fourteen days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 13, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00997-GEB-CHS Document 18 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 2