Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02514/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02514-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Michael Werth
Petitioner
James Yates
Defendant

Document Text:

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’s motion for a stay and abeyance, filed on May 3, 2007, was not properly

1

noticed for a hearing on the undersigned’s law and motion calendar. Therefore, the June 29,

2007 hearing date referred to by counsel in the motion was vacated by the Clerk’s Office. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON MICHAEL WERTH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2514 MCE DAD P

vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 17, 2007, respondents filed a motion

to dismiss the petition as containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The motion was set

for a hearing before the undersigned. Petitioner filed his opposition to the motion wherein he

acknowledged that two of his five claims were unexhausted but argued that the proceedings

should be stayed. On March 5, 2007, the court vacated the hearing on respondents’ motion to

dismiss and ordered petitioner to file and set for hearing, an appropriate motion for a stay and

abeyance. Petitioner has now informed the court that on June 13, 2007, the California Supreme 1

Case 2:06-cv-02514-FVS Document 18 Filed 06/19/07 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

Court denied his state habeas exhaustion petition without comment or citation. Petitioner asserts

that all the claims set forth in his federal habeas petition before the court have now been

exhausted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondents’ motion to dismiss, filed on January 17, 2007, be denied as moot;

2. Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance, filed on May 3, 2007, be denied as

moot; and

3. Respondents be ordered to file their response to petitioner’s habeas petition as

set forth in the court’s November 20, 2006 order.

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: June 19, 2007.

DAD:4

wert2514.157mtd

Case 2:06-cv-02514-FVS Document 18 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 2