Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01657/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01657-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CODY CROUCH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

RALPH DIAZ, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—01657-SKO-HC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE (DOC. 6)

ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR A STAY AND REQUEST TO

AMEND THE PETITION (DOC. 7)

ORDER DIRECTING THAT ANY FIRST

AMENDED PETITION BE FILED NO

LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER

THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PETITIONER 

DEADLINE: THIRTY (30) DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case,

including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting consent in

1

Case 1:12-cv-01657-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 5
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

a signed writing filed by Petitioner on November 2, 2012 (doc.

5). Pending before the Court are 1) the petition, which was

filed on October 10, 2012; 2) Petitioner’s response, filed on

December 3, 2012, to the Court’s previously issued order to show

cause regarding exhaustion of state court remedies, and 3)

Petitioner’s motions for the Court to reconsider his previous

motion for a stay of the proceedings and to amend the petition

for writ of habeas corpus. 

I. Discharge of the Order to Show Cause

On November 6, 2012, the court issued an order to show cause

directing Petitioner to show cause why the proceeding should not

be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

Petitioner responded to the order to show cause on December 3,

2012 (doc. 7); thus, the order will be discharged.

II. Reconsideration of the Court’s Denial of Petitioner’s 

 Request for a Stay 

Petitioner admittedly failed to exhaust state court remedies

as to some of his claims. Accordingly, he requested a stay of

the proceedings to complete the proceedings in the state courts

to exhaust state court remedies as to the unexhausted claims. 

The Court denied the stay and issued the order to show cause

regarding exhaustion. In the response to the order to show

cause, Petitioner requested that the Court reconsider his motion

for a stay to permit completion of state court proceedings

undertaken to exhaust state court remedies.

The Court will dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration of his motion to stay the proceedings because

Petitioner’s state court proceedings have concluded. In response

2

Case 1:12-cv-01657-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/17/13 Page 2 of 5
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

to the OSC, Petitioner argues that he exhausted all claims by

means of a petition for review (doc. 7, 31), and a petition for

writ of habeas corpus (doc. 7, 48), filed in the California

Supreme Court. 

A review of Petitioner’s petitions, which are attached to

his response to the order to show cause, and judicial notice of

the docket of People v. Crouch, California Supreme Court case

number S195409, in which a petition for review was denied on

October 12, 2011, reveal that for purposes of screening the

petition, Petitioner has exhausted state court remedies as to his

sentencing claim. Further, from considering Petitioner’s 1

petitions and from taking judicial notice of the docket of Crouch

(Cody) on Habeas Corpus, California Supreme Court case number

S206185, in which a petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied

on December 19, 2012, it appears for the purposes of screening

the petition that Petitioner has exhausted state court remedies

as to his claims concerning the ineffective assistance of

counsel.

Accordingly, with respect to the claims alleged in the

petition presently before the Court, it appears that state court

remedies have been exhausted. Therefore, there is no need for a

stay, and the request for reconsideration will be dismissed as

The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of

1

accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot

reasonably be questioned, including undisputed information posted on official

websites. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331,

333 (9th Cir. 1993); Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d

992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). It is appropriate to take judicial notice of the

docket sheet of a California court. White v Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 885 (9th

Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 332 (2010). The address of the official

website of the California state courts is www.courts.ca.gov.

3

Case 1:12-cv-01657-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/17/13 Page 3 of 5
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

moot. 

III. Motion to Amend the Petition 

In his response to the order to show cause, Petitioner asks

the Court to allow him to amend his federal habeas petition with

all the issues raised within his state petitions. (Doc. 7, 1-2.) 

The petition has not been served. It, therefore, appears

that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), Petitioner may file a

first amended petition without leave of the Court. Accordingly,

it will be ordered that Petitioner’s request to amend the

petition be dismissed as moot.

This Court has inherent power to control its docket and the

disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both

the Court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299

U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260

(9th Cir. 1992). The proceedings have already been substantially

delayed by Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies

before filing the petition. The Court has not been able to

complete its screening process. To avoid any further delay and

to facilitate the prompt readying of this case for a decision on

the merits, the Court exercises its discretion to impose a

deadline on Petitioner for filing a first amended petition. 

Accordingly, it will be ordered that Petitioner may file his

first amended petition no later than thirty (30) days after the

date of service of this order.

Petitioner is INFORMED that a failure to file a first

amended petition with exhaustion of state remedies clearly stated

within the allotted time will result in a recommendation that the

petition be dismissed and the action be terminated for

4

Case 1:12-cv-01657-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/17/13 Page 4 of 5
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

Petitioner’s failure to follow an order of the Court and

prosecute the action. Petitioner is further advised that Local

Rule 220 provides that unless prior approval to the contrary is

obtained from the Court, every pleading as to which an amendment

or supplement is permitted shall be retyped or rewritten and

filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the

prior or superseded pleading.

IV. Disposition 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) The order to show cause that issued on November 6, 2012,

is DISCHARGED; and 

2) Petitioner’s request for reconsideration of his motion

for a stay is DISMISSED as moot; and

3) Petitioner’s request or motion to amend the petition is

DISMISSED as moot; and

4) Petitioner shall FILE his first amended petition no

later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:12-cv-01657-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/17/13 Page 5 of 5