Brugman v. Eaton
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 9 at 9.) 3
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a magistrate judge's recommendation regarding a state prisoner's motion to stay his federal habeas corpus petition pending exhaustion of state court remedies. The court adopted the recommendation, denied a stay under *Rhines v. Weber*, granted a stay under *Kelly v. Small*, and administratively closed the case.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in entirety (Doc. 9);” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent (*Reyna-Tapia*), the district judge must make a de novo determination of portions of the report to which objection is made. Since neither party filed objections, the court was not required to perform a de novo review but instead reviewed the R&R for clear error or to ensure it was thorough and well-reasoned. The court found no error, making the adoption procedurally sound. |
Denial of stay under Rhines v. Weber“(2) DENIES a stay under Rhines and GRANTS a stay under Kelly;” | unclear | unsure The order does not explicitly state the legal standard for the *Rhines* stay, but it adopts the Magistrate's R&R which recommended this outcome. *Rhines* allows a stay for exhaustion if the petitioner has a colorable claim and good cause for failure to exhaust. The court's decision to deny this specific type of stay while granting a *Kelly* stay suggests the petitioner's circumstances fit the *Kelly* framework (where the state court is already considering the claims) rather than the *Rhines* framework (where the petitioner needs time to file in state court). Without the full R&R text, the specific factual basis is not visible, but the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is correct. |
Granting of stay under Kelly v. Small“(2) DENIES a stay under Rhines and GRANTS a stay under Kelly;” | unclear | agree with court The court granted the stay under *Kelly v. Small*, which permits a stay when the petitioner has filed a state court petition that is pending or has been filed, and the federal court can monitor progress. The Respondent argued for this standard, and the Magistrate recommended it. The court adopted this recommendation. This is a standard procedural tool in the Ninth Circuit for managing mixed habeas petitions where state proceedings are underway. |
Stay of the case and administrative closure“(3) STAYS this case. ... The Clerk of Court will administratively close this case until further Order of this Court.” | unclear | agree with court The court stayed the case and ordered administrative closure, which is the standard procedural consequence of granting a *Kelly* or *Rhines* stay. The court also imposed a reporting requirement (status report every 90 days) to ensure the petitioner is making progress toward exhaustion, which is a common condition of such stays to prevent indefinite delay. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for the R&R (de novo if objected to, otherwise for clear error/thoroughness). It correctly notes that no objections were filed. It adopts the R&R and issues the corresponding orders (denying *Rhines* stay, granting *Kelly* stay, staying the case, and closing it administratively). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order adopting an R&R without objections.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BRUGMAN, Case No.: 3:22-cv-1350-RBM-LR 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 PATRICK EATON, (2) DENYING STAY UNDER 15 Respondent. RHINES AND GRANTING STAY PURSUANT TO KELLY 16 (3) STAYING CASE 17 [Docs. 6, 9] 18 19 20 Petitioner, a state prisoner represented by counsel, has filed a Petition for Writ of 21 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s 22 Application to Hold Federal Habeas Petition in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of Issues 23 in State Court (“Motion to Stay”). (Doc. 6.) Respondent filed a Response that does not 24 oppose the granting of a stay, but asserts the stay should be granted under Kelly v. Small, 25 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) and King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009) rather 26 than under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) as requested by Petitioner. (Doc. 8.) 27 Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation 28 (“R&R”) on May 2, 2023 recommending that the Motion to Stay be denied as to a stay 1 |}under Rhines and granted as to a stay under Kelly. (Doc. 9.) Any objections to the R&R 2 || were required to be filed no later than May 17, 2023. (Doc. 9 at 9.) 3 A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 4 ||recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 5 || States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). The district judge must “make a de 6 determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection 1s made[,]” but 7 ||not otherwise. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 8 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 9 || judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.’’) 10 (emphasis in original). 11 Neither party has filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. Thus, 12 || having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no 13 error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in 14 entirety (Doc. 9); (2) DENIES a stay under Rhines and GRANTS a stay under Kelly; 15 (3) STAYS this case. 16 Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a status report no later than August 17, 2023 and 17 || every ninety (90) days thereafter that details his progress toward exhaustion. The Clerk 18 || of Court will administratively close this case until further Order of this Court. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: May 19, 2023 FR Borrudy Moidtiryy D_ 3 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28