Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01734/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01734-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304.

On February 28, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 

recommendations to dismiss Petitioner’s state law claims without 

leave to amend. The findings and recommendations were served on all 

parties on the same date. The findings and recommendations advised 

the parties that objections could be filed within thirty days and 

replies within fourteen days after the filing of objections. 

Although the thirty-day period for the filing of objections has 

XIONG YENG,

 Petitioner,

v.

RICK HILL, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01734-AWI-BAM-HC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 9)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S STATE 

LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 

(DOC. 1)

ORDER REFERRING THE MATTER BACK TO 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR RULING ON 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A STAY 

(DOC. 12)

Case 1:13-cv-01734-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 2
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

passed, no objections have been filed. However, after receiving an 

extension of time to object, Petitioner filed a motion for a stay on 

June 6, 2014, in which Petitioner sought to stay the claims that 

will remain in the petition after the state claims are dismissed; 

Petitioner seeks to exhaust state court remedies as to additional 

claims. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 

this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having 

carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the report 

and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, the findings and recommendations will be adopted in 

full.

In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:

1) The findings and recommendations filed on February 28, 2014, 

are ADOPTED in full; and

2) Petitioner’s state law claims are DISMISSED without leave to 

amend; and 

2) The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for 

consideration of Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the proceedings 

pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01734-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 2