Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00459/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00459-5/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

WILLIAM A. ROMERO, No. CIV S-04-0459-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

D. RUNNELS,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are petitioner’s response

to the court’s December 7, 2005, order to show cause (Doc. 27) and petitioner’s motion for leave

to file an amended petition (Doc. 29). 

On December 7, 2005, the court denied petitioner’s motion for an order staying

these proceedings and holding considering of petitioner’s claims in abeyance pending exhaustion

in state court of unexhausted claims (“stay and abeyance order”). The court concluded that a

stay and abeyance was not appropriate because this is not a “mixed” petition scenario where

petitioner has presented numerous claims in the same habeas corpus petition, but some of those

claims are unexhausted. Rather, petitioner sought a stay in order to exhaust completely new

Case 2:04-cv-00459-MCE-CMK Document 31 Filed 03/22/06 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

claims which were not included in the instant petition. The court noted that a stay and abeyance

order might be appropriate should petitioner be granted leave to amend the instant petition to

include the unexhausted claims. Petitioner has now sought leave to amend. Respondent will be

directed to respond.

The court’s December 7, 2005, order also addressed petitioner’s failure to comply

with various court orders in this case. In particular, the court noted several instances where

petitioner had not served documents on respondent and directed petitioner to show cause. 

Because it now appears that petitioner has served all relevant documents and understands the

service requirements, the order to show cause will be discharged. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s December 7, 2005, order to show cause is discharged; and

2. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, respondent shall file a

response to petitioner’s motion for leave to file an amended petition.

DATED: March 21, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00459-MCE-CMK Document 31 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2