(DP) (HC) Mills v. Davis, No. 2:2017cv02195 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/27/19 ADOPTING 42 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 39 Motion to Stay. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(DP) (HC) Mills v. Davis Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFERY JON MILLS, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-2195 WBS DB DEATH PENALTY CASE v. RONALD DAVIS, 15 ORDER Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 5, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 26 ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 5, 2019 (ECF No. 42) are adopted 27 28 in full; 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2. Petitioner’s April 21, 2017 Motion for Stay/Abeyance (ECF No. 39) is granted; 2 3. Petitioner shall file an exhaustion petition in the appropriate state court within forty- 3 five days of the date of this order; 4 5 4. This case is stayed and held in abeyance pending the California Supreme Court’s resolution of petitioner’s exhaustion petition; and 6 5. Petitioner shall file a request to lift the stay within thirty days of the California 7 Supreme Court’s decision on petitioner’s exhaustion petition. 8 Dated: November 27, 2019 9 10 11 12 DLB:9/mills2195.803.hc 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 mills 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.
