Simpson v. Moore
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — When no o
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's motion for stay and abeyance of his federal habeas corpus petition to allow for the exhaustion of claims in state court. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and granted the motion, ordering the petitioner to file quarterly status reports until the state proceedings are resolved.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Report and Recommendation“Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ADOPTS the Report [Doc. No. 14] in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), when no objections are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review but may review the report for clear error. The court explicitly stated it reviewed the report and found no clear error, which is the appropriate procedural posture given the lack of objections. |
Granting Motion for Stay and Abeyance“Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance [Doc. No. 5] is GRANTED pursuant to King.” | unclear | agree with court The court granted the stay pursuant to King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). King allows a district court to stay a federal habeas petition to allow a petitioner to exhaust state court remedies, provided the petitioner demonstrates that the unexhausted claims have merit and that the stay is not an attempt to manipulate the federal statute of limitations. The order recites that the Magistrate Judge's report was 'thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.' While the order itself does not detail the specific findings of the Magistrate Judge regarding the merit of the claims or the timeliness of the motion, the adoption of the report implies these requirements were met. The procedural mechanism of a stay and abeyance is a recognized equitable power in habeas cases to preserve the federal statute of limitations while state proceedings are pending. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in the absence of objections (review for clear error rather than de novo). It correctly cites the controlling Ninth Circuit authority (King v. Ryan) for the grant of a stay and abeyance. The order imposes specific, reasonable conditions (quarterly status reports) to ensure the petitioner actually pursues the state court exhaustion, which is consistent with the equitable nature of the stay. There are no gaps in the reasoning provided in the order itself, as it relies on the adopted Report for the underlying factual and legal analysis.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIONTE JAMAL SIMPSON, Case No.: 21cv1763-CAB-NLS 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 14] AND GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 MOORE, STAY AND ABEYANCE [Doc. No. 5] 15 Respondent. 16 17 On October 12, 2021, Petitioner Dionte Jamal Simpson (“Petitioner”), a state 18 prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, [Doc. No. 1.] On January 24, 2022, Petitioner filed 20 a Motion for Stay and Abeyance. [Doc. No. 5.] On June 28, 2022, Magistrate Judge Nita 21 L. Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the 22 Court grant the motion for stay and abeyance pursuant to King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 23 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2009)(“King”). [Doc. No. 14.] The Report also ordered that any 24 objections were to be filed by July 5, 2022. [Report at 3.] To date, no objection has been 25 filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection. 26 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 27 recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 28 Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 1 || filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 2 ||recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and 3 || Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may 4 || “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 5 ||the magistrate judge.” Jd. However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge 6 || must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 7 ||made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 8 || Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 9 requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 10 || parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. 11 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed it, 12 || the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 13 || Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ADOPTS the Report [Doc. No. 14] in its entirety. For 14 || the reasons stated in the Report, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 15 1. Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance [Doc. No. 5] is GRANTED pursuant 16 || to King. 17 2. By October 8, 2022, and for every three months thereafter (that is, by January 8, 18 || 2023; April 8, 2023; July 8, 2023; and so on), Petitioner must file a status report with this 19 || Court that details his progress in exhausting his unexhausted claims in the state courts. 20 3. Within 14 days of the state court’s decision resolving his claims, Petitioner must 21 || file a motion requesting that the stay be lifted. Once Petitioner moves to lift the stay, 22 || Petitioner’s obligation to file these status reports will end. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: July 8, 2022 € Z 25 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 26 United States District Judge 27 28