Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00804/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00804-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK RAY BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

A.P. KANE, WARDEN

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00804 AWI SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR STAY AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING

PETITIONER TO FILE AN AMENDED

PETITION, IF NECESSARY

[Docs. 3, 11]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 23, 2006. On this

same date, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the petition pending exhaustion of certain claims in

the state court. On July 31, 2006, the Court issued an order to show cause why the motion for

stay should be granted. (Court Doc. 8.) Petitioner filed a response on August 22, 2006. (Court

Doc. 9.) On September 15, 2006, the Court issued a second order to show cause. (Court Doc.

10.) On September 20, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion entitled “Motion And Request For

Permission To Proceed With The Petition And Notification Of Change Of Name Of Respondent,

Warden, And Declaration Of Fredrick [sic] Ray Brown.” (Court Doc. 11.)

In his motion filed, September 20, 2006, Petitioner indicates that the new claims have

been exhausted in the state court in case number S137701, and attaches a denial by the California

Supreme Court, dated August 30, 2006. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to stay the petition is

Case 1:06-cv-00804-SMS Document 12 Filed 11/06/06 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

27

28 Petitioner is advised that if an amended petition need not be filed, Petitioner does not need to respond to 1

the instant order and the Court will proceed on the petition, filed June 23, 2006. 

2

now MOOT and will be denied on that ground. However, it is still unclear to the Court what

new claims Petitioner has now exhausted, and/or whether those claims were raised in the instant

petition, filed June 23, 2006. Petitioner is advised that all claims he wishes to raise in the instant

action must be presented in a single petition. See Local Rule 15-220 (amended pleading must be

complete in itself without reference to prior pleading). However, if the newly exhausted claims

were raised in the initial petition, then Petitioner need not file an amended petition. 

To the extent Petitioner is seeking a ruling on any potential procedural default by way of

a claim of his actual innocence, Petitioner is advised that this Court does not issue advisory

ruling on claims that have not yet been raised in the action. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to stay, is DENIED as MOOT; and

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner may

submit an amended petition, if the newly exhausted claims were not presented in

the initial petition, filed June 23, 2006.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00804-SMS Document 12 Filed 11/06/06 Page 2 of 2