Vilaychith Khouanmany v. Mark Gutierrez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 EASTERN DIVISION 12 13 VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY, ) Case No. 5:21-cv-00989-JFW-JDE ) 14 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER DENYING 15 v. ) ) PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A 16 MARK GUTIERREZ, Warden, et ) STAY AND ACCEPTING REPORT ) AND RECOMMENDATION OF al., ) 17 ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 18 Respondents. ) JUDGE 19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the records on file, 20 including the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 21 (Dkt. 1 “Petition”) filed by Petitioner Vilaychith Khouanmany (“Petitioner”), 22 Petitioner’s June 25, 2021 “Motion to Supplements” (Dkt. 9), Petitioner’s June 23 30, 2021 “Motion to Supplement Ground Two and Three and One” (Dkt. 12), 24 the Amended Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 13 “OSC”), Petitioner’s Response to 25 the OSC (Dkt. 17), the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 19 “R&R”) of the 26 United States Magistrate Judge, Petitioner’s “Motion for Extension of Time 27 Motion for Abeyance ‘Stay’ ‘Objection to Report and Recommendation of 28 United States Magistrate Judge’ . . . Motion for Appointment of Counsel” 1 ||(Dkt. 20 “Objections”), and “‘Objections to R&R’ Motion to Abeyance 2 || (STAY)” (Dkt. 23 “Supplemental Objections’’). 3 With her Objections and Supplemental Objections, Petitioner purports to 4 ||request a stay of the proceedings while she exhausts administrative remedies. 5 || The Court has considered Petitioner’s request for a stay and finds a stay is not 6 || warranted. “Exhaustion by a federal prisoner of [her] administrative remedies 7 |\1s a pre-filing requirement, not a step to be accomplished during the pendency 8 || of a habeas petition.” Salinas-Becerra v. Woodring, 2008 WL 4224563, at *1 9 ||(C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2008) (citing Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th 10 || Cir. 1991) “Generally, a federal prisoner is required to exhaust his federal 11 ||administrative remedies before filing a habeas petition.”)); see also Ward v. 12 || Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012). Petitioner has not proffered any 13 || legal basis for her request or shown that she should be excused from the pre- 14 || filing exhaustion requirement. The only ground for relief the assigned 15 || Magistrate Judge found unexhausted was Ground Two. However, as noted in 16 ||the R&R, this claim also is not ripe for review at this time. R&R at 7-10. 17 || Petitioner does not object to this finding in her Objections or Supplemental 18 || Objections. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for a stay is denied. 19 The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the R&R 20 || to which objections have been made. The Court accepts the findings and 21 ||recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 23 (1) Petitioner’s request for a stay (Dkt. 20, 23) is DENIED; and 24 (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without 25 prejudice. 26 || Dated: September 24, 2021 4 oA LEE 97 OHN F. WALTER United States District Judge 28