Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01942/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01942-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert R. Borys
Petitioner
Daniel Paramo
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 

ROBERT R. BORYS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DANIEL PARAMO, 

Respondents. 

No. 2:15-cv-1942 WBS AC P 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

 On January 20, 2016, the district judge adopted the undersigned’s findings and 

recommendations that petitioner’s motions for stay and abeyance be granted. ECF No. 10. In 

granting the stay, the district court ordered that upon exhausting his administrative remedies, 

petitioner was to notify the court of the California Supreme Court’s ruling, request the stay be 

lifted, and file an amended federal petition containing all of his exhausted claims. Id. Petitioner 

has now filed a first amended petition that states that the California Supreme Court denied his 

petition on February 17, 2016 (ECF No. 11 at 3); requests that the stay be lifted (id. at 16); and 

includes his newly exhausted claims (id. at 18-38). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the stay be lifted and the case 

proceed on the first amended petition. 

 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 

Case 2:15-cv-01942-JKS Document 14 Filed 04/07/16 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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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: April 7, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01942-JKS Document 14 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 2