Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01876/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01876-3/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

ANTHONY M. BLACKWELL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1876 DFL GGH P

vs.

RODERICK W. HICKMAN, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s December 4, 2006,

request to hold this action in abeyance while he exhausts additional claims in state court. On

December 21, 2006, respondent filed a response stating that he does not oppose this request. 

Good cause appearing, the court recommends that petitioner’s motion to stay be

granted. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005)(district courts have discretion to

hold mixed petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of unexhausted claims).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s December 4,

2006, request to stay proceedings be granted; this action be administratively closed.

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01876-RRB-GGH Document 16 Filed 02/07/07 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

2

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 2/7/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

black1876.sta

Case 2:06-cv-01876-RRB-GGH Document 16 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 2