Case 2:20-cv-08778-DMG-PVC Document 49 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:996

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD EARL ROBINSON, Case No. CV 20-8778 DMG (PVC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 THERESA CISNEROS, Warden,1 JUDGE AND LIFTING STAY ENTERED ON DECEMBER 29, 15 Respondent. 2021 (Dkt. No. 30) 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records 18 and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 19 Judge, and both sets of Petitioner’s Objections. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge 20 recommends that the stay in this action be lifted for Petitioner’s failure to file 21 required status reports and that Petitioner be ordered to voluntarily dismiss his 22 unexhausted claims or face dismissal of the Petition as mixed. In his first set of 23 Objections, Petitioner explains that he never received the order granting the stay 24 and requiring the submission of status reports. He further presents evidence that he 25 has by now exhausted the claims for which a stay was granted. The 26 1 Theresa Cisneros, Warden of the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and 27 State Prison, where Petitioner is currently incarcerated, is substituted for the Respondent originally named in the Petition and the substitute Respondent named in the Report and 28 Recommendation, neither of whom has custody of Petitioner any longer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Case 2°20-cv-08778-DMG-PVC Document 49 Filed 12/14/22 Page2of2 Page ID#:997

1 || recommendation that Petitioner be ordered to dismiss his unexhausted claims 2 || therefore appears to have been mooted. Accordingly, the Court accepts the 3 || findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge to the extent 4 || that the Report recommends that the stay in this action be lifted, but ORDERS that 5 |] this action shall proceed on all the claims raised in the Petition, without prejudice to 6 || Respondent’s right to challenge whether Petitioner actually exhausted the claims 7 || for which a stay was granted. 9 IT IS ORDERED that: 10 11 (1) The December 29, 2021 Order granting Petitioner a stay 12 pursuant to Rhines v. Weber,

(2005), is hereby 13 VACATED: and 14 15 (2) Respondent shall file a response to the Petition within thirty 16 days of the date of this Order. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 | DATED: December 14, 2022 1 In. ha 22 UNITED q ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28