(HC) Herrera v. Cisneros

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 22, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-00703·Unknown

Opinion

JAIME HERRERA, No. 1:22-cv-0703 JLT SKO (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND v. DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A STAY TERESA CISNEROS, Warden, (Docs. 2, 6) Respondent. Jaime Herrera is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner moved for the action to be stayed and his petition to be held in abeyance pending exhaustion of additional claims pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). (Doc. 2.) The assigned magistrate judge found Petitioner failed to show good cause for the stay, and recommended the motion be denied. (Doc. 6.) The Findings and Recommendations included a notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 21 days of service. (Doc. 6 at 3.) In addition, the Court advised Petitioner that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court.” (Id., citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 15, 2022 (Doc. 6), are 2. Petitioner’s motion for stay (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 3. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Dated: _ July 22, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(HC) Herrera v. Cisneros, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

(HC) Herrera v. Cisneros ((HC) Herrera v. Cisneros) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rhines v. Weber
544 U.S. 269 (Supreme Court, 2005)