Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02211/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02211-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND P. IDLEMAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S - 02-2211 FCD GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CASEY, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner’s case has been stayed since June 16, 2003. The June 16, 2003 order

adopted this court’s April 16, 2003 Findings and Recommendations recommending a stay of

petitioner’s second amended petition pending exhaustion. In the order, petitioner was “directed

to file a third amended petition containing all of his claims immediately upon exhaustion of his

unexhausted claims in the highest state court.” Order, filed on June 16, 2003, p. 2. 

The court has no record of petitioner having filed a third amended petition and

this action has remained stayed for two years at this point. Petitioner is now directed to show

cause, within 30 days, why he has failed to file a third amended petition, showing proof of

exhaustion of his unexhausted claims and incorporating all exhausted claims, within a reasonable

amount of time. See Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005) (“[e]ven

where stay and abeyance is appropriate, the district court’s discretion in structuring the stay is

Case 2:02-cv-02211-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

limited by the timeliness concerns reflected in AEDPA”). Petitioner is also directed to show

cause why the stay imposed in this matter should not be lifted and why, thereafter, this action

should not either be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to file a third amended petition within a

reasonable period of time or why the matter should not simply proceed upon the claims filed in

the second amended petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/13/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:009

idle2211.osc

Case 2:02-cv-02211-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2