Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01123/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01123-3/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

STEVEN PERRIDON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-00-1123 LKK JFM P

vs.

ERNIE ROE, Warden, et al., ORDER

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 3, 2005, this court issued an order

granting petitioner’s May 9, 2005 motion to amend his petition and recommending, inter alia,

that this matter be stayed pending exhaustion of state court remedies as to two newly added

claims for relief. On July 8, 2005, respondents filed a motion for relief from the order granting

leave to file an amended petition. By order filed July 12, 2005, the district court adopted in full

the June 3, 2005 findings and recommendations and stayed this action pending exhaustion of

state remedies as to the additional claims for relief. On July 13, 2005, respondents filed a motion

for reconsideration of that order.

On February 9, 2007, petitioner filed a motion to lift the stay of this action. On

March 16, 2007, respondents filed a response to petitioner’s motion. In their response,

respondents indicate that they have no opposition to lifting the stay of this action but that they

wish to preserve the statute of limitations defense raised in their July 8, 2005 motion for relief

Case 2:00-cv-01123-LKK -JFM Document 41 Filed 03/21/07 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

from the order granting petitioner leave to amend his petition and their July 13, 2005 motion for

reconsideration of the stay order. 

Good cause appearing, the stay of this action will be lifted. Respondents’ July 13,

2005 motion for reconsideration is thereby mooted and will be denied. Respondents will be

granted a period of time in which to file a motion to dismiss the two claims added to this action

in petitioner’s June 3, 2005 amended petition on any appropriate grounds including but not

limited to those advanced in their July 8, 2005 and July 13, 2005 motions.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s February 9, 2007 request to lift the stay is granted;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen this action;

3. Respondents’ July 8, 2005 motion for relief from judgment is denied without

prejudice;

4. Respondents’ July 13, 2005 motion for reconsideration is denied as moot and

without prejudice to renewal of the statute of limitations arguments contained therein by motion

to dismiss filed in accordance with this order;

5. Respondents are granted twenty days from the date of this order to file and

serve a motion to dismiss the two Batson claims raised in petitioner’s first amended petition filed

June 3, 2005; and

6. Said motion shall be noticed for hearing on this court’s regular law and motion

calendar and briefed in accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 78-230(m). 

DATED: March 20, 2007.

12perr1123.o2

Case 2:00-cv-01123-LKK -JFM Document 41 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 2