(HC)Dev v. Lizarraga, No. 2:2018cv01972 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/12/2018 ADOPTING the 19 findings and recommendations in full. Petitioner's 2 Motion to Stay is GRANTED. Petitioner is directed to file in this court, within thirty (30) days after the filing date of the California Supreme Court's final order resolving petitioner's unexhausted claims, a motion to lift the stay and a motion to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, together with a proposed First Amended Petition. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this case for the duration of the stay. CASE STAYED. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC)Dev v. Lizarraga Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AJAY KUMAR DEV, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:18-cv-1972 KJM AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER JOE LIZARRAGA, Warden, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 10, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF19. Petitioner has not 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 27 the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 10, 2018, are adopted in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s motion to stay and abey this action under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 4 5 (2005), ECF No. 2, is GRANTED; 3. Petitioner is directed to file in this court, within thirty (30) days after the filing date of 6 the California Supreme Court’s final order resolving petitioner’s unexhausted claims, a motion to 7 lift the stay and a motion to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, together with a 8 proposed First Amended Petition; and 9 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this case for the duration of 10 the stay. 11 DATED: September 12, 2018. 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
