Vilaychith Khouanmany v. Mark Gutierrez

Opinion

VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY, ) Case No. 5:21-cv-00989-JFW-JDE ) Petitioner, ) ) ORDER DENYING v. ) ) PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A MARK GUTIERREZ, Warden, et ) STAY AND ACCEPTING REPORT ) AND RECOMMENDATION OF al., ) ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE Respondents. ) JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the records on file, including the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1 “Petition”) filed by Petitioner Vilaychith Khouanmany (“Petitioner”), Petitioner’s June 25, 2021 “Motion to Supplements” (Dkt. 9), Petitioner’s June 30, 2021 “Motion to Supplement Ground Two and Three and One” (Dkt. 12), the Amended Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 13 “OSC”), Petitioner’s Response to the OSC (Dkt. 17), the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 19 “R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge, Petitioner’s “Motion for Extension of Time Motion for Abeyance ‘Stay’ ‘Objection to Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge’ . . . Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (Dkt. 20 “Objections”), and “‘Objections to R&R’ Motion to Abeyance (STAY)” (Dkt. 23 “Supplemental Objections’’). With her Objections and Supplemental Objections, Petitioner purports to request a stay of the proceedings while she exhausts administrative remedies. The Court has considered Petitioner’s request for a stay and finds a stay is not warranted. “Exhaustion by a federal prisoner of [her] administrative remedies \1s a pre-filing requirement, not a step to be accomplished during the pendency of a habeas petition.” Salinas-Becerra v. Woodring, 2008 WL 4224563, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2008) (citing Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991) “Generally, a federal prisoner is required to exhaust his federal administrative remedies before filing a habeas petition.”)); see also Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012). Petitioner has not proffered any legal basis for her request or shown that she should be excused from the pre- filing exhaustion requirement. The only ground for relief the assigned Magistrate Judge found unexhausted was Ground Two. However, as noted in the R&R, this claim also is not ripe for review at this time. R&R at 7-10. Petitioner does not object to this finding in her Objections or Supplemental Objections. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for a stay is denied. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which objections have been made. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: (1) Petitioner’s request for a stay (Dkt. 20, 23) is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. Dated: September 24, 2021 4 oA LEE 97 OHN F. WALTER United States District Judge