Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02729/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02729-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY ALTAMIRANO SERMENO,

Petitioner,

v.

M.E. SPEARMAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-02729 DB P

ORDER

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is now proceeding on his first amended 

petition. (ECF No. 9.)

Petitioner filed his initial petition on November 20, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On August 17, 

2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order dismissing the petition for failure to 

exhaust all claims in state court. (ECF No. 8.) However, the court afforded petitioner the 

opportunity to file an amended petition along with a motion for stay and abeyance pursuant to 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 273 (2005). Petitioner then timely filed the first amended 

petition (ECF No. 9) and motion for stay and abeyance (ECF No. 12). 

On August 2, 2016, the case was reassigned to the undersigned. (ECF No. 16.) On 

November 23, 2016, the undersigned entered an order requiring petitioner to file a statement 

explaining whether he had exhausted all six claims raised in the first amended petition by raising

Case 2:14-cv-02729-JAM-DB Document 29 Filed 02/14/17 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

them and receiving a ruling from the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 19.) Petitioner timely 

filed a statement on the record affirming that all six claims were exhausted in state court. (ECF 

No. 21.)

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to stay is moot since there are no longer unexhausted 

claims in state court, which would necessitate a stay. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF No. 12) is denied as moot. By separate order, the court will 

screen the first amended petition and address petitioner’s recently-filed motion for 

reconsideration (ECF No. 23). 

Dated: February 13, 2017

TIM-DLB:10

DB / ORDERS / ORDERS.PRISONER.HABEAS / serm2729.rhines

Case 2:14-cv-02729-JAM-DB Document 29 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 2