Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00264/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00264-11/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LARRY A. CHATMAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

M. S. EVANS, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:10-cv-0264 KJM CKD P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this application for a writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On October 15, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Respondent has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations and petitioner has filed a reply to respondent’s 

objections. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

///// 

Case 2:10-cv-00264-KJM-CKD Document 72 Filed 02/03/16 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

 In his reply to respondent’s objections, petitioner represents that the California Supreme 

Court has denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus, that all of the claims raised in his second 

amended petition are now exhausted, and that his motion to stay is therefore moot. The motion to 

stay will therefore be denied as moot. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 15, 2015, are adopted in part; 

 2. Petitioner’s motion to amend (ECF No. 65) is granted; 

 3. Petitioner’s motion to stay this action pending exhaustion of state remedies as to new 

claims in the second amended petition (ECF No. 66) is denied as moot; and 

 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

DATED: February 3, 2016. 

Case 2:10-cv-00264-KJM-CKD Document 72 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 2