(HC) William H. Baymiller v. People of the State of California, No. 2:2017cv02458 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/24/18 ORDERING that The FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 6/29/18 16 are ADOPTED in full; Petitioner's Motion to Stay 13 is GRANTED. This action is ADMINISTRATIVELY STAYED; and Petitioner is ORDERED to inform the court within thirty days of the exhaustion in state court of the unexhausted claim raised in the original petition. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(HC) William H. Baymiller v. People of the State of California Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM HOLT BAYMILLER, 12 13 14 15 No. 2: 17-cv-2458 MCE KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 29, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 22 contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 23 fourteen days. Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 26 ORDERED that: 27 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 29, 2018, are adopted in full. 28 2. Petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF No 13) is granted. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 3. This action is administratively stayed; and petitioner is ordered to inform the court 2 within thirty days of the exhaustion in state court of the unexhausted claim raised in the original 3 petition. 4 Dated: August 24, 2018 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

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.