1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARSEN PANASIAN, ) NO. LA CV 20-06022-VBF (AGR) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) 13 v. ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 14 JOHN SUTTON, Warden, ) AND RECOMMENDATION OF ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 18 19 20 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of 21 Habeas Corpus, the other records on file herein, the Report and 22 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) and the 23 Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions 24 of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The 25 Court accepts the findings and recommendation in the Report.1 26 1 In his objections, Petitioner argues that the portion of Ground Six based 27 on the trial court’s failure, sua sponte, to instruct on accident should be deemed exhausted because a different section of his petition for review before the 28 California Supreme Court incorporated by reference an earlier section of that 1 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss the 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 3 PART as follows: 4 1. Ground Two and Subclaim (b) of Ground Six are deemed 5 unexhausted; 6 2. Petitioner may file a motion for stay or notice of dismissal of 7 unexhausted grounds within 30 days after entry of this order. If 8 Petitioner does not timely do so, briefing will proceed on the exhausted 9 grounds.2 10 11 DATED: September 14, 2021 /s/ Valerie Baker Fairbank 12 VALERIE B. FAIRBANK United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 petition on the subject of a trial court’s obligation to issue correct instructions. 25 (LD 6 at 64 (incorporating LD 6 at 57-58).) The objections do not identify any cases in that earlier section that addressed the issue of a trial court’s sua sponte 26 duty to give a pinpoint instruction absent a request from defense counsel. 27 2 Nothing in this order precludes Respondent from addressing the unexhausted grounds on the merits under Cassett v. Stewart,

, 624 28 (9th Cir. 2005).