Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02324/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02324-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO V. VILLASENOR,

Petitioner, No. 2:09-cv-2324 KJM EFB P

vs.

MICHAEL MARTEL,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 8, 2012, respondent moved to dismiss the petition on that

ground that four of petitioner’s nine claims were unexhausted. Dckt. No. 23. On April 12, 2012,

petitioner requested the court stay this proceeding so he could return to state court to exhaust the

four unexhausted claims. Dckt. No. 28 at 5. On May 4, 2012, petitioner filed a document

entitled “Notice of Filing State Petition and Clarification of Prior Pleading.” Dckt. No. 29. In

this document, petitioner explains that he has filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme

Court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Id. at 1. A review of the California Courts’ website

shows that on May 7, 2012, petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court,

which was denied on November 20, 2012. 

////

1

Case 2:09-cv-02324-TLN-EFB Document 34 Filed 03/07/13 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

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned ordered the parties to show cause, in writing, on

or before February 11, 2013, why respondent’s motion to dismiss and petitioner’s motion for a

stay should not be dismissed as moot. Respondent filed a reply, which states, “To the extent

petitioner has now presented his federal claims in the California Supreme Court and the

California Supreme Court has denied the petition with those federal claims, the federal claims

are exhausted and Respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust is moot.”

Respondent’s reply to the order to show cause is unresponsive. It simply contains a

concession that a petitioner exhausts his state remedies by presenting them to the California

Supreme Court. The undersigned did not issue the order to show cause to verify the applicable

law concerning exhaustion, but rather to ascertain whether petitioner, in this specific case, had in

fact exhausted the state remedies for the claims respondent seeks to dismiss for lack of

exhaustion. The undersigned’s attempt to determine whether petitioner exhausted his state

remedies was further frustrated by petitioner’s failure to respond to the order to show cause. 

In light of the parties’ failures, the undersigned will provide both parties with an

additional opportunity to address the issue of whether petitioner has exhausted his state

remedies, thereby rendering the pending motions moot. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED

that the parties show cause, in writing, on or before March 21, 2013, why respondent’s motion to

dismiss, Dckt. No. 23, and petitioner’s motion for a stay, Dckt. No. 28, should not be dismissed

as moot. 

DATED: March 7, 2013.

2

Case 2:09-cv-02324-TLN-EFB Document 34 Filed 03/07/13 Page 2 of 2