# Andes

> District Court, E.D. California · January 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11241324

## Case

- **Full name:** Shawn C. Brown v. Chance Andes
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** January 7, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11241324

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SHAWN C. BROWN, No. 2:24-cv-00742-DC-CKD (HC)
12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 CHANCE ANDES,
(Doc. Nos. 25, 29)
15 Respondents.
16
17 Petitioner Shawn C. Brown, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for
18 a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States
19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On October 14, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein,
21 which were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and
22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. No. 29.) The parties have not
23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and the time to do so has passed.
24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed
27 the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
28 the magistrate judge’s analysis.
1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. The findings and recommendations filed on October 14, 2025 (Doc. No. 29) are
3 ADOPTED IN FULL;
4 2. Petitioner’s motion for request of stay and abeyance (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED;
5 3. This case is STAYED and held in abeyance pending exhaustion of state court
6 remedies;
7 4. Petitioner is directed to file a status report within ninety (90) days of the date of
8 entry of this order, and every 90 days thereafter, advising the court of what steps
9 he has taken to exhaust his claims in state court;
10 5. Within thirty (30) days after the state court issues a final order resolving the
11 unexhausted claims, Petitioner shall file a motion to lift the stay and, if he wishes
12 to pursue newly exhausted claims in this federal habeas action, Petitioner shall also
13 file a second amended federal petition setting forth all exhausted claims; and
14 6. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for proceedings consistent with
15 this order.
16
17
18 IT IS SO ORDERED. □
19 | Dated: _January 6, 2026 UC
Dena Coggins
20 United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11241324. Public record. Not legal advice.