Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00272/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00272-1/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

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

MICHAEL LEE CARTER, No. CIV-S-04-0272 MCE/GGH P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent.

_________________________/

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On April 21, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein 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 twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-00272-MSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Petitioner filed a motion for a stay, subsequent to the 1

pending Findings and Recommendations, which seeks the same

outcome recommended by the magistrate judge and which is rendered

moot by this Order. See petitioner’s May 10, 2005 motion for

stay and abeyance pending exhaustion of state court remedies. 

2

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.1

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 21, 2005,

are adopted in full; 

2. Petitioner’s claim of conflicted counsel arising from

counsel’s representation of petitioner’s putative co-defendant is

stricken as an unexhausted claim;

3. The petition containing only the exhausted claim with

respect to petitioner’s counsel’s conflict arising from a

relationship with the victim is stayed pending exhaustion of the

stricken unexhausted claim; and

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00272-MSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. Petitioner is directed to file his state supreme court

petition containing his unexhausted claim within thirty days of

this order; once the decision of the state supreme court has been

filed, petitioner must file an amended petition within thirty

days following exhaustion of his claim.

DATED: May 31, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00272-MSB Document 22 Filed 06/01/05 Page 3 of 3