(DP) Letner v. Davis

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD LACY LETNER, Case No. 1:18-cv-01459-NONE-SAB 12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING RONALD DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE Prison, PENDING STATE EXHAUSTION 15 PROCEEDINGS Respondent.

18 Petitioner Richard Lacy Letner, a state prisoner facing capital punishment, proceeds through appointed counsel Michael Snedeker and Lisa Short on the habeas corpus petition filed December 19, 2019 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22 Before the court is petitioner’s March 19, 2020 motion to stay federal proceedings pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), to allow state court exhaustion of claims and allegations in the mixed petition. Respondent Warden Ronald Davis, through counsel Deputy Attorney General Galen Farris, filed an opposition to the motion on April 3, 2020, and petitioner replied on April 10, 2020.

27 On May 29, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that petitioner’s motion be granted. (Doc. No. 57.) The findings and WAS 4.40 VEIT SENS VO PIR Pee Ye ee | recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto | were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Ud. at 10.) Respondent has not objected | or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations and the time for doing so has | passed.

5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, | the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper | analysis.

9 Accordingly, 10 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 29, 2020 (Doc. No. 57) are 11 adopted in full; 12 2. Petitioner’s motion to stay federal proceeding pending resolution of state court 13 proceeding (Doc. No. 52) is granted and any and all scheduled dates in this 14 proceeding are vacated; 15 3. Petitioner shall pursue state court exhaustion without delay and inform this 16 court within thirty (30) days of a decision by the state court on his exhaustion 17 petition; and 18 4. The case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘i 21 Dated: _ July 10, 2020 Sea 1" SF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE