(HC) Armstrong v. Soto, No. 1:2015cv01109 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 11 Findings and Recommendations to Grant 3 Motion to Stay Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/22/16. CASE STAYED. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRUCE ARMSTRONG, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 1:15-cv-01109-DAD-MJS v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT MOTION TO STAY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS JOHN SOTO, 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 3, 11) 16 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 19 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by counsel. On July 6, 2015, petitioner filed this petition. (Doc. No. 1.) Three days later, petitioner 21 22 filed the instant motion to stay these proceedings while he sought exhaust his claims for 23 ineffective assistance of counsel and juror misconduct in state court. (Doc. No. 3.) On September 21, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 24 25 recommendations, including a recommendation to grant petitioner’s motion to stay the petition 26 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the decision in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (Doc. 27 No. 11.) No objections have been filed to the findings and recommendations. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. 6 The September 21, 2015 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 11) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 7 2. 8 Petitioner’s motion for stay (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED, and the instant action shall be administratively stayed; and 9 3. Petitioner is directed to file a motion to lift the stay within thirty (30) days of the 10 California Supreme Court issuing a final order resolving petitioner’s unexhausted 11 claims. 12 Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with this order may result the dismissal of the 13 petition. See Local Rule 110. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 Dated: January 22, 2016 DALE A. DROZD 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.