Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01365/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01365-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Frauenheim
Respondent
Brad Robert Miller
Petitioner

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 

BRAD ROBERT MILLER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-1365 JAM CKD P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action 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 Rule 302. 

 On March 18, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party 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 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis. 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-01365-JKS Document 33 Filed 05/23/16 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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 18, 2016 are adopted in full; 

 2. Petitioner’s motion for stay (ECF No. 22) is granted as follows: 

 a. The amended petition (ECF No. 18) is dismissed as “mixed”; 

 b. No later than thirty days after dismissal, petitioner shall file a second amended 

petition containing only exhausted claims (Claims 2 and 3); 

 c. Failure to timely file such an amended petition will result in this action being 

closed; and 

 d. Upon receipt of a fully exhausted second amended petition, that court will 

administratively stay this action pursuant to Kelly, pending exhaustion of Claim 1 in the 

California Supreme Court. 

 3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is granted as consistent with the above; 

 4. Petitioner’s motion to amend traverse (ECF No. 25) is denied as inconsistent with this 

order; and 

 5. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including 

review of the proposed Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 28). 

DATED: May 20, 2016 

 /s/ John A. Mendez 

 United States District Court Judge 

 

2 / mill1365.804.hc 

Case 2:15-cv-01365-JKS Document 33 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 2