Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02315/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02315-0/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

08cv0214

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STUART S. PRESSLY,

Petitioner,

v.

F.B. HAWS(Warden),

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-CV-2315-J (JMA)

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS PENDING EXHAUSTION

OF STATE COURT REMEDIES

On December 10, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus in this Court. [Doc. No. 1.] On December 18,

2007, the Court issued an Order requiring a response from

Respondent. [Doc. No. 3.] On May 6, 2008, Respondent filed an

Answer to the Petition. [Doc. No. 11.] On May 21, 2008 (nunc

pro tunc to May 19, 2008), Petitioner filed a Motion to stay

these proceedings while he exhausts new claims raised in state

habeas corpus proceedings (“State Petition”). [Doc. no. 13]

The State Petition appears to contain the following claims

which are not currently raised in Petitioner’s federal Petition:

(1) that there was insufficient evidence of first degree

Case 3:07-cv-02315-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 05/30/08 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

2 08cv0214

burglary and of a prior serious felony;

(2) that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for

failing to object to Petitioner’ shackling during

trial; 

(3) that the trial court improperly allowed reference to

irrelevant evidence that was unfairly prejudicial;

(4) that the judge, and not the jury, made findings of fact

that enhanced Petitioner’s sentence; and 

(5) that Petitioner’s prior federal convictions were

improperly counted.

(State Petition at 3-7.) The Motion requests that the Court stay

these proceedings while Petitioner exhausts state remedies as to

these additional claims and then permit Petitioner to amend the

Petition to include them.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for

filing of Petitioner’s Traverse set forth in the Court’s April

22, 2008 Order [doc. no. 8] is hereby VACATED. Respondent shall

file a response to Petitioner’s Motion on or before July 7, 2008. 

Petitioner shall file a reply on or before August 18, 2008. In

his reply, Petitioner shall address whether his request for a

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

U.S. 269 (2005).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 30, 2008

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02315-WQH-JMA Document 14 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 2