Bahrambeygui v. Robertson
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petitioner's motion for stay and abeyance of his federal habeas petition while his state habeas petition remained pending in the California Supreme Court. The court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted the motion, ordering the petitioner to move to lift the stay within 14 days of the state court's decision.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Report and Recommendation“Accordingly, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. (ECF No. 14.)” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R. Because no party filed objections to the R&R, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review, though it noted it had reviewed the R&R and agreed with it. The adoption is procedurally sound. |
Grant of Motion for Stay and Abeyance“The Court therefore GRANTS Bahrambeygui’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance. (ECF No. 2.)” | unclear | agree with court The order grants the stay and abeyance based on the adoption of the R&R. While the order does not explicitly state the legal standard for granting a stay and abeyance (typically under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or comity principles to allow state proceedings to conclude), the decision to stay federal proceedings while state habeas proceedings are pending is a standard and appropriate exercise of discretion to avoid duplicative litigation and respect state court processes. The court's reliance on the R&R, which presumably contained the legal analysis, is sufficient for this procedural order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R when no objections are filed, citing appropriate Ninth Circuit and district court authority. The court explicitly states it reviewed the R&R and agreed with it, providing a clear basis for adoption. The grant of the stay and abeyance is a logical consequence of adopting the R&R, which recommended the same. The order is concise and addresses the procedural posture accurately.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALI HASSEM BAHRAMBEYGUI, Case No. 21-cv-01153-BAS-AGS 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 JIM ROBERTSON, et al., RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 15 Respondents. ENTIRETY (ECF No. 14); AND 16 (2) GRANTING PETITIONER’S 17 MOTION TO STAY (ECF No. 2)
19 20 21 Petitioner Ali Hassem Bahrambeygui, proceeding pro se, filed his federal habeas 22 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while his state habeas petition is still pending in the 23 California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 1.) Bahrambeygui filed a Motion for Stay and 24 Abeyance. (ECF No. 2.) On December 3, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew 25 G. Schopler issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court grant 26 Bahrambeygui’s Motion, giving Respondents fourteen days to file any objections. (ECF 27 No. 14.) To date, no party has filed an objection to the R&R. 28 1 The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 2 ||28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 3 || findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” /d. But “[t]he statute makes 4 clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 5 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna- 6 || Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 7 || F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, 8 district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the 9 Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 10 || recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Jd. “When no objections 11 filed, the de novo review is waived.” Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-1735, 2010 WL 12 || 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without 13 ||review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so). 14 In this case, the deadline for filing objections was December 17, 2021. However, 15 parties have not filed any objections or requests for additional time to do so. 16 || Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 17 at 1121. Having nonetheless reviewed the R&R, the Court agrees with the R&R’s 18 ||/recommendations. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the R&R in its 19 entirety. (ECF No. 14.) The Court therefore GRANTS Bahrambeygui’s Motion for Stay 20 |}and Abeyance. (ECF No. 2.) Within 14 days of the state court’s decision resolving his 21 claims, Bahrambeygui must file a motion requesting that the stay be lifted. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 A 24 || DATED: December 20, 2021 ( yi uA (Liphan 6 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28