The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 KEVIN A. BROWN, No. 2:20-cv-0991-KJM-SCR
12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER
14 JIM ROBERTSON,
15 Respondent.
16
17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas
18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as
19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On October 6, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party filed
23 objections to the findings and recommendations.
24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,
25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de
26 novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court
27 has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record
28 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 64) are adopted.
3 2. Petitioner’s request for a Rhines stay in order to exhaust his pretrial Faretta claim in
4 || state court is granted.
5 3. Petitioner is directed to file a status report with this court every 90 days indicating
6 || what step(s) he has taken to exhaust his state court remedies with respect to his pretrial Faretta
7 || claim.
8 4. Petitioner is further ordered to file a motion to lift the stay of this case within 30 days
9 || from the date of any decision by the California Supreme Court on state habeas review.
10 | DATED: November 13, 2025.
oUt
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28