Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00831/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00831-8/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

 Mr. Martinez filed his November 17, 2006 motion for a stay in response to an order

this Court issued on October 20, 2006, denying a previous motion for a stay. In the October 20

order, the Court denied Mr. Martinez’s previous motion on the ground that it was “conclusory

and insufficient,” and gave him thirty days to file an amended motion for a stay. The Court

instructed that the amended motion “must (1) establish good cause for petitioner’s failure to

exhaust all claims prior to filing this action, (2) identify petitioner’s unexhausted claims and

demonstrate that each is potentially meritorious, (3) describe the status of any current state court

proceedings on the unexhausted claims, and (4) demonstrate that petitioner has acted with

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LEE MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV 06-0831 ALA HC

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, et al.

Defendants. ORDER

____________________________/

Before the Court is a motion filed on November 17, 2006 by pro se petitioner Kenneth

Lee Martinez, asking the Court to stay his 29 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus action while he

exhausts several unexhausted claims in state court.1 Since November 17, 2006, the California

Case 2:06-cv-00831-ALA Document 45 Filed 08/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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

diligence in pursuing these additional unexhausted claims.” October 20, 2006 Order, Doc. No.

18.

2

 Mr. Martinez filed a state habeas petition in San Joaquin Superior Court on February

22, 2006, setting forth claims of prosecutorial, judicial, and investigative misconduct. The San

Joaquin Superior Court denied that petition on April 26, 2006. Mr. Martinez then filed a petition

in the California Court of Appeal, which denied it on June 15, 2006, and the California Supreme

Court, which denied it on January 24, 2007. Mr. Martinez filed a second state habeas petition in

the California Supreme Court on November 7, 2006, which the California Supreme Court denied

on January 24, 2007. He appears also to have filed a state habeas petition in San Joaquin

Superior Court on November 16, 2006. The Superior Court denied that petition on December

28, 2006. Mr. Martinez then filed a petition in the California Court of Appeal, which the

California Court of Appeal denied on March 22, 2007. It is unclear from the record whether Mr.

Martinez then filed a petition in the California Supreme Court or, if so, what if any decision the

California Supreme Court rendered with regard to it. 

-2-

Supreme Court appears to have issued decisions finally denying at least two state habeas corpus

petitions filed by Mr. Martinez that were pending on November 17, 2006.2

 It is therefore

possible that Mr. Martinez has, since November 17, 2006, exhausted all of his previouslyunexhausted habeas claims. If Mr. Martinez has, in fact, exhausted each of those claims, his

Motion for Stay and Abeyance must be denied as moot. The Court cannot determine whether the

Motion for Stay and Abeyance is moot without further information regarding the status of Mr.

Martinez’s state habeas petitions.

Therefore, Mr. Martinez is ordered to show cause, on or before September 6, 2007, why

his Motion for Stay and Abeyance should not be denied as moot due to his subsequent

exhaustion of state remedies. Mr. Martinez’s filing in response to this order must: (1) list the

case name, case number, and filing date of each state habeas corpus petition he filed with respect

to his December 20, 2002 conviction; (2) list, for each petition, the date of each disposition 

/ / /

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:06-cv-00831-ALA Document 45 Filed 08/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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 -3-

issued with respect to the petition by the San Joaquin Superior Court, the California Court of

Appeal, and/or the California Supreme Court; and (3) set forth each of his claims, if any, that

still remain unexhausted.

DATED: August 9, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:06-cv-00831-ALA Document 45 Filed 08/10/07 Page 3 of 3