(HC) Varnado v. Seibel et al, No. 2:2017cv02413 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 12/18/2018 VACATIING the 10 findings and recommendations issued on 8/8/2018; and further VACATING the 11/13/2018 order directing respondent to file a response to the petition. Petitioner's motions for a stay of the proceedings will be addressed by separate findings and recommendations. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERION DEMONTA VERNADO, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-CV-2413-TLN-DMC-P Petitioner, v. ORDER KIMBERLY A. SEIBEL, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with retained counsel, brings this petition 18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 16, 2017, Petitioner 19 filed a motion to stay proceedings (ECF No. 3). On August 8, 2018, this Court issued findings 20 and recommendations recommending the District Court Judge deny Petitioner’s motion to stay 21 proceedings (ECF No. 10). Petitioner timely filed objections to this Court’s findings and 22 recommendations on September 21, 2018 (ECF No. 14). On November 13, 2018, this Court 23 ordered Respondents to file an answer to the petition within 60 days. Then, on November 15, 24 2018, Petitioner filed a renewed motion to stay proceedings (ECF No. 23). 25 Upon review of Petitioners renewed motion to stay proceedings and the new facts 26 provided within, this Court VACATES the findings and recommendations issued on August 8, 27 2018. This court further VACATES its November 13, 2018, order directing Respondent to file a 28 response to the petition within 60 days. Petitioner’s motions for a stay of the proceedings will be 1 1 2 addressed by separate findings and recommendations. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 5 Dated: December 18, 2018 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 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.