Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01107/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01107-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Todd Eastman
Petitioner
Warden
Respondent

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY TODD EASTMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:24-cv-01107-TLN-JDP (HC)

ORDER

GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

ECF Nos. 6

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A 

RHINES STAY BE DENIED

ECF No. 7

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE FOR 

OBJECTIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. The 

petition is deficient because, as he concedes in his subsequently filed motion for a stay under 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), it contains only unexhausted claims. ECF No. 7. The 

motion for stay is also deficient because a Rhines stay is available only for petitions that are 

“mixed” and contain both exhausted and unexhausted claims. See Jones v. McDaniel, 320 F. 

Case 2:24-cv-01107-TLN-JDP Document 8 Filed 10/03/24 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

27

28

2

App’x 784, 786 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A Rhines stay is only available for a mixed habeas petition 

where at least some claims have been exhausted, and none of Jones’ habeas claims were 

exhausted.”). Here, the motion for stay appears to refer to all claims in the petition and to 

indicate a need to exhaust all of them. ECF No. 7 at 1-2. Accordingly, I recommend that 

petitioner’s motion for stay be denied. If these recommendations are adopted, I will order 

plaintiff to indicate how he wishes to proceed. If the petition does, in fact, contain exhausted 

claims, petitioner may state as much in his objections to these recommendations. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion to stay, ECF No. 7, be DENIED.

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 fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of 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. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01107-TLN-JDP Document 8 Filed 10/03/24 Page 2 of 2