Reeves v. ALLISON
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the Petitioner's Motion for Stay in a habeas corpus case. The court adopted the R&R, granted the stay for unexhausted claims under *Kelly v. Small*, and denied the stay under *Rhines v. Weber*.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is ADOPTED in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R. Since no objections were filed by either party, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review of the specific findings, but rather reviewed the record to ensure the R&R was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The order explicitly cites the statutory authority (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)) and case law (*Wang*, *Reyna-Tapia*) supporting this procedure. Adopting the R&R in its entirety is a standard procedural outcome when no objections are raised. |
Granting of Motion for Stay under Kelly v. Small“Petitioner’s Motion for Stay pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1149) (9th Cir. 2001)) and King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009) is GRANTED.” | unclear | agree with court The court granted the stay for unexhausted claims (grounds seven and eight) based on the *Kelly v. Small* framework. The order notes that the Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition deleting the unexhausted claims, which is a prerequisite for a *Kelly* stay. The court imposed specific conditions (status reports, lodging state court filings) to ensure the stay is not abused. This is a standard application of Ninth Circuit law regarding the stay-and-abeyance of federal habeas proceedings to allow exhaustion of state remedies. |
Denial of Motion for Stay under Rhines v. Weber“Petitioner’s Motion for Stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) is DENIED.” | unclear | agree with court The court denied the stay under *Rhines v. Weber*. *Rhines* allows for a stay of federal proceedings to allow exhaustion of state remedies, but it is typically used when the petitioner has not yet filed a federal petition or when the federal petition is premature. Here, the petitioner had already filed a federal petition and was seeking to stay it. The court granted the stay under *Kelly* (which is the specific Ninth Circuit mechanism for staying a pending federal habeas petition to allow exhaustion) and denied the *Rhines* stay. This distinction is legally sound; *Kelly* is the more appropriate vehicle for a pending petition in the Ninth Circuit, and *Rhines* is often reserved for situations where the federal petition has not yet been filed or is being filed concurrently with state exhaustion. The denial of the *Rhines* stay does not preclude the *Kelly* stay, which was granted. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard for reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R when no objections are filed. It correctly applies the *Kelly v. Small* framework for staying a federal habeas petition to allow exhaustion of state remedies, imposing appropriate conditions to prevent abuse. The denial of the *Rhines* stay is also appropriate, as *Kelly* is the specific Ninth Circuit mechanism for this situation. The order is clear and follows established law.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD LEE REEVES, III, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01886-WQH-RBB 12 ORDER Petitioner, 13 v. 14 RAYMOND MADDEN 15 16 Respondent. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matters before the Court are the Motion for Stay filed by Petitioner Donald Lee 19 Reeves, III (ECF No. 4) and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate 20 Judge (ECF No. 11). 21 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 22 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 23 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 24 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 25 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 26 district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 27 which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 28 1 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 2 (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 3 review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 4 correct.”). 5 The record reflects that no objections have been filed by either party. The Court has 6 reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is 8 ADOPTED in its entirety. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay is GRANTED IN PART and 9 DENIED IN PART. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 10 (9th Cir. 2003) (overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1149) 11 (9th Cir. 2001)) and King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009) is GRANTED. 12 Petitioner’s Motion for Stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) is DENIED. 13 1. On February 10, 2020, Petitioner filed the First Amended Petition. (ECF No. 14 13). Petitioner has deleted the unexhausted claims (grounds seven and eight) of 15 the original Petition. 16 2. Petitioner shall file a status report every sixty days from the date of this Order to 17 update the Court on Petitioner’s progress in exhausting claims seven and eight of 18 the Petition. 19 3. Petitioner is required to lodge with the Court a file-stamped copy of each state- 20 court petition and, as soon as any state court rules on any of his petitions, a copy 21 of the ruling. 22 4. If Petitioner does not obtain relief from the state courts, the First Amended 23 Petition should be held in abeyance until thirty days after the California Supreme 24 Court denies Petitioner’s unexhausted claims. During that thirty-day period, 25 Petitioner shall file a Motion to Amend the First Amended Petition to add the 26 newly exhausted claims and shall lodge a proposed Second Amended Petition. 27 In the motion, Petitioner shall demonstrate that the claims are timely or relate 28 1 back to the original exhausted claims. Petitioner shall attach a copy of the 2 California Supreme Court's ruling on his state-court petition. 3 5. Petitioner is warned that the failure to strictly comply with the above 4 requirements may result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute or 5 comply with court orders, or the stay being lifted and the Court proceeding to 6 adjudicate only the six exhausted claims in the First Amended Petition. 7 || Dated: February 11, 2020 itt Z. A a 8 Hon. William Q. Hayes 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28