Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00317/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00317-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS LAMB,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES YATES, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-00317 OWW DLB HC

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION AND CONTINUING

STAY ENTERED ON MAY 8, 2007

[Docs. 6, 7, 8] 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Eric S. Multhaup, Esq.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 27, 2007. On

May 8, 2007, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to stay and hold the petition in abeyance

pending exhaustion of state court remedies. (Court Doc. 4.) Petitioner was directed to file an

initial status within thirty days from the date of service of that order, and a new status report

every ninety (90) days thereafter. (Id.) Petitioner filed an initial status on June 2, 2007;

however, a further status report was not filed within ninety days thereafter. Accordingly, on

October 4, 2007, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the instant petition

for failure to comply with a court order. (Court Doc. 6.) 

On November 1, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations,

along with a further status report. (Court Docs. 7, 8.) In his objections, Petitioner’s counsel

apologizes for not calendaring the status report on a 90-day cycle, and for failing the file a status

Case 1:07-cv-00317-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 11/05/07 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

report on September 1, 2007. (Objections, at 2.) Counsel declares that this error was inadvertent

and not the result of willful noncompliance with the Court’s May 8, 2007, order. (Id.) 

Local Rule 11-110 provides: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

Although counsel does not provide any basis, other than mere negligence, in failing to

comply with the Court’s order, the Court does not find that Petitioner intentionally disregarded

the Court’s order, given that Petitioner has been diligently pursing his claims in the state courts,

and counsel’s declaration that future status report dates have been calendared. (Objections, at 2;

Status Report, at 1-2.) 

Accordingly, on the basis of GOOD CAUSE, the Court hereby VACATES the Findings

and Recommendations issued October 4, 2007 (Court Doc. 6), and the Court’s May 8, 2007,

order granting the stay and abeyance remains in full force and effect (Court Doc. 4). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00317-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 11/05/07 Page 2 of 2