Ronald Eugene James v. Edward Silva

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:25-cv-00319-DAD-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PETITIONER’S MOTIONS TO STAY HIS TRANSFER TO STATE PRISON EDWARD SILVA, (Doc. Nos. 6, 7, 9, 14) 15 Respondent.

18 Petitioner Ronald Eugene James is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 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 On August 7, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that petitioner’s various motions to stay his transfer to state prison1 be denied.

1 The first two such motions filed by petitioner were characterized by him as motions for stay and abeyance. (See Doc. Nos. 6, 7.) However, none of petitioner’s pending motions for stay request that his pending petition be stayed and held in abeyance pending exhaustion of his claims under the decisions in either Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) or Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 27 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Rather, in all three of his motions petitioner asks that his transfer from the Sacramento County Jail to a California State Prison institution be stayed pending resolution of his pending federal habeas petition. (See Doc. Nos. 6, 7, 9.)

1 | (Doc. No. 14.) Specifically, the magistrate judge correctly noted that a petitioner for federal | habeas relief, such as petitioner here, has no right to be housed at any particular institution during || the pendency of the habeas proceedings. (/d. at 1-2.)

4 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained | notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Ud. at | 2-3.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time || in which to do so has now passed.”

8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

11 Accordingly: 12 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 7, 2025 (Doc. No. 14) are ADOPTED 13 IN FULL; 14 2. Plaintiffs motions to “stay” his transfer to state prison (Doc. Nos. 6, 7, and 9) are 15 DENIED; and 16 3. The matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 17 proceedings.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ September 15, 2025 Da A. 2, gel 20 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE | a On September 9, 2025, petitioner filed a request that the court order CDCR to provide him with || the name of the Warden of the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility where he is currently incarcerated. (Doc. No. 18.) That filing is not directed at petitioner’s motions for stay | of his transfer to state prison or the August 7, 2025 findings and recommendations.