Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01068/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01068-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD PHILLIPS

Petitioner,

v.

DAVE DAVEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01068-SAB-HC

ORDER ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO 

STAY STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS

(ECF No. 12)

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2241. On October 14, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant motion to stay the pending state court 

proceedings until the adjudication of his federal habeas petition. 

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party “must establish that he is 

likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 

public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Supreme Court has repeatedly 

recognized that injunctive relief is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 

granted unless the movant by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. 

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). A preliminary injunction should “be granted if the [party 

requesting relief] has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and 

doubtful, as to make them fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation.” 

Case 1:14-cv-01068-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 10/22/14 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

Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 813 (4th Cir.1991).

Petitioner alleges that both of his claims in the instant federal habeas petition require 

adjudication on the merits, which “cannot occur in the time remaining before the scheduled 

trial.” (ECF No. 12). Petitioner provides no support for his argument that his retrial cannot 

proceed until the conclusion of his federal habeas petition. Petitioner has failed to show that he 

will suffer prejudice if his federal habeas petition does not conclude before his retrial, as his

federal habeas petition only challenges his location in a state prison. Furthermore, Petitioner 

fails to identify how his location in a state prison will affect his retrial. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to stay the state court 

proceedings is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01068-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 10/22/14 Page 2 of 2