Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01777/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01777-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT A. LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

G.D. LOUIS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01777 AWI MJS (HC)

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO STAY 

AND AMEND

(Docs. 10, 21, 26)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On July 12, 2012, Petitioner filed his petition (Pet., ECF No. 1), but then on 

November 16, 2012, filed a motion to stay the action to allow him to exhaust state court 

remedies with respect to some claims in the petition. (Mot. To Stay, ECF No. 10.) On 

January 24, 2013, Respondent answered the petition and filed an opposition to the 

motion to stay. (ECF Nos. 17, 19.) On February 5, 2013, Respondent supplemented his 

answer and filed with the Court the California Supreme Court's decision denying 

Petitioner's state habeas action. (Supp., ECF No. 24.) The state court decision served to 

exhaust Petitioner's state court remedies. 

Presently before the Court is Petitioner's motion to stay, and his motions to 

Case 1:12-cv-01777-DAD-MJS Document 28 Filed 08/30/13 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

27

28

2

amend the petition to either properly add exhausted claims to the petition or 

alternatively, remove unexhausted claims from the petition. (ECF Nos. 10, 21, 26.) 

Inasmuch as Petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies, there is no need to stay 

the present matter. And since none of the claims in the present petition remain 

unexhausted, and there is no need to remove unexhausted claims from the petition to 

allow the Court to review the petition. 

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to stay and motions to amend are DENIED. The 

Court shall address the merits of the petition in due course. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

ci4d6

Case 1:12-cv-01777-DAD-MJS Document 28 Filed 08/30/13 Page 2 of 2