Opinion
No. 2:15-cv-1286 KJM GGH
03-18-2016
KENNETH O. OWENS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 8, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 15. Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). /////
After the magistrate judge issued the findings and recommendations, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that completely unexhausted habeas petitions may be stayed if the criteria for a stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) are met. Mena v. Long, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 625405 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2016). Good cause appearing, this matter will be referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further consideration in light of Mena.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 8, 2016, are not adopted; and
2. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further consideration in light of Mena v. Long, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 625405 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2016). DATED: March 18, 2016.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE