Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01241/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01241-2/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

RAIN DICKEY-O’BRIEN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1241 WBS KJM P

vs.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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 January 10, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

with respect to petitioner’s June 27, 2007 motion for a stay. The findings and recommendations

were served on petitioner and petitioner was informed that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed objections to the

findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. After conducting that review, the

court will adopt in part and reject in part the January 10, 2008 findings and recommendations.

Case 2:07-cv-01241-WBS-CKD Document 14 Filed 03/17/08 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

Petitioner’s objections clarify that he seeks habeas relief based upon two claims. 

See Pet. at 11. Petitioner has exhausted state court remedies with respect to his first claim (Pet.

at 2, 3 & 11), but not as to his second (Pet. at 5, 6 & 11). Petitioner asks the court to stay this

matter so that he may exhaust state court remedies as to his second claim. Because petitioner’s

second claim is potentially meritorious and because he has adequately explained why he did not

exhaust state court remedies sooner (see Findings and Recommendations at 2:8-19), the court

will grant petitioner’s June 27, 2007 motion for stay. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278

(2005). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (docket no. 12), are adopted in part and

rejected in part as set forth herein; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay (docket no. 6) is granted;

3. This matter is stayed; 

4. The Clerk of the Court shall administratively close this case; and

5. Petitioner is ordered to inform the court that he has exhausted state court

remedies within ten days of exhaustion.

DATED: March 14, 2008

/dick1241.804hc

Case 2:07-cv-01241-WBS-CKD Document 14 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 2