Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01436/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01436-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY EARL RICHARD,

Petitioner,

v.

SUSAN HUBBARD,

Respondents.

No. 2:12-cv-1436 GEB DAD P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 19, 2013, the court granted petitioner’s motion to amend his petition 

pursuant to the stay and abeyance procedure outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 

2003), stayed this case, and ordered petitioner to exhaust any of his unexhausted claims in state 

court forthwith. On October 15, 2013, less than a month later, petitioner filed a status report in 

which he explained that he “was currently in the Superior Court waiting on my issues to be heard 

. . . which was denied.” Petitioner further stated in his status report that he would like to file a 

motion to lift the stay in this action and proceed with this case. 

On October 24, 2013, the court advised petitioner that exhaustion of state court remedies 

is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

The court further advised petitioner that he satisfies the exhaustion requirement only if he has 

Case 2:12-cv-01436-GEB-DB Document 26 Filed 12/24/13 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

fairly presented to the California Supreme Court (not a Superior Court) all federal claims before 

presenting the claims to this federal court. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004); 

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Wooten 

v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008). The court instructed petitioner that if he had 

not fairly presented his claims to the California Supreme Court, he should proceed through the 

appropriate procedure governing the seeking of habeas relief in state court without delay and 

continue to file and serve a status report in this case on the first court day of each month. If, on 

the other hand, petitioner had fairly presented his claims to the California Supreme Court, the 

court instructed him to file a motion to lift the stay of this action, together with a motion to amend 

his petition, and a proposed third amended petition containing only exhausted claims. Since the 

court issued its October 24, 2013 order, petitioner has not filed a status report or a motion to lift 

the stay of this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date of service 

of this order petitioner shall file either: (a) a status report, or (b) a motion to lift the stay of this 

action, together with a motion to amend his petition, and a proposed third amended petition 

containing only exhausted claims.

Dated: December 23, 2013

DAD:9

rich1436.status(2)

Case 2:12-cv-01436-GEB-DB Document 26 Filed 12/24/13 Page 2 of 2