Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00032/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00032-0/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

27

28

07cv0032

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD VILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

M.S. EVANS, Warden

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-CV-0032-JAH (JMA)

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO

PETITIONER’S MOTION REQUEST TO

STAY FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS

On January 3, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. [Doc. No. 1.] On April 16, 2007, Petitioner filed

a Motion Request to Stay Federal Proceedings. [Doc. No. 8.] The

motion requests that the Court stay these proceedings while

Petitioner exhausts state remedies as to unexhausted “Claim #5.” 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent shall file

a response to Petitioner’s motion for stay on or before June 1,

2007 (this response will serve to fulfill the obligation to

respond set forth in the Court’s March 8, 2007 Order [Doc. No.

6]). Petitioner shall file a reply on or before July 6, 2007. 

In his reply, Petitioner shall address whether his request for a

Case 3:07-cv-00032-JAH-JMA Document 9 Filed 04/26/07 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

27

28

1

In his motion, Petitioner states that his legal papers are lost

and makes two inquiries. In response to the first inquiry, the Court

notes that the Petition contains four claims (which appear as five

claims because the substance of Ground Three is repeated in Ground

Four), as follows: Ground One - “Petitioner was denied due process in

violation of the 14th Amendment by being convicted without sufficient

evidence;” Ground Two - “Petitioner was denied due process in

violation of the 14th Amendment by being convicted of murder with a

weapon based on a theory that didn’t contemplate the use of weapon;”

Ground Three - “Petitioner was denied due process in violation of the

14th Amendment because there was no rational connection between the

fact proved and the fact that was inferred;” Ground Four - “Petitioner

was denied due process in violation of the 14th Amendment because

there was no rational connection between the fact proved and the fact

that was inferred;” Ground [5] - “Petitioner was denied the right to

confront and cross-examine witnesses as well as due process when the

trial court allowed hearsay testimony (violation of the 6th & 14th

Amend.).”

In response to Petitioner’s second inquiry about whether his

family can send payment for copies of his petition, the Court directs

Petitioner to the Clerk’s Office for the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of California, 880 Front Street, 4th Floor, San

Diego, CA 92101; (619) 557-5473.

2 07cv0032

stay meets the requirements set forth in Rhines v. Weber, 544

U.S. 269 (2005).1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 26, 2007

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00032-JAH-JMA Document 9 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 2