(HC) Montgomery v. Lozano ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRY LEE MONTGOMERY, No. 2:20-cv-0515 JAM AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JARED LOZANO, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, has filed a motion for a stay. ECF No. 17. The motion seeks a stay 19 on the ground that petitioner currently has an SB620 petition pending in state court. Id. The 20 undersigned has already issued Findings and Recommendations which recommend dismissal of 21 the petition because it fails to state any cognizable claims for relief. ECF No. 7. Because the 22 resolution of the state court petition would not cure the defects identified in the Findings and 23 Recommendations, the request for stay should be denied. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for a stay, ECF 25 No. 17, be DENIED. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 1 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 3 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 4 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 5 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | DATED: December 17, 2020 . ~ 7 Athen LU tpt g ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28