(HC) Larry Bailey-Banks v. W.L. Montgomery, No. 1:2015cv01839 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Petitioner's Motion to Stay and Abey Petition 27 , 28 , 30 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/2/2018: Petitioner's motion to stay (ECF Nos. 27 & 28) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling, as explained in the findings and recommendation.(Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 1:15-cv-01839-AWI-MJS (HC) LARRY BAILEY-BANKS, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Petitioner, RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY AND ABEY PETITION 12 v. 13 14 15 (ECF NOS. 27, 28, 30) W.L. MONTGOMERY, Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his June 7, 2012 conviction 20 for robbery, burglary, accessory after the fact, and receiving stolen property. (ECF No. 21 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 The assigned Magistrate Judge conducted a preliminary review of the petition and 24 ordered Respondent to file a response. (ECF No. 10.) On May 12, 2016, Respondent 25 filed an answer. (ECF No. 21.) On July 31, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to stay and 26 abey the petition while he exhausted additional claims in state court. (ECF Nos. 27; 28.) 27 Respondent opposes this motion. (ECF No. 29.) 28 On December 29, 2017, the Magistrate 1 Judge issued findings and 1 recommendations to deny Petitioner’s motion to stay. (ECF No. 30.) Petitioner was given 2 fourteen days to file objections. Petitioner did not file objections and the time to do so 3 has passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 5 the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 6 entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 7 record and by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. 10 11 12 The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on December 29, 2017 (ECF No. 30) in full; and 2. Petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF Nos. 27; 28) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling, as explained in the findings and recommendation. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 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.