Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00235/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00235-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE ORLANDO TUCKER, No. CIV S-04-0235-LKK-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

K. PROSPER, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are petitioner’s motions

filed on July 27, 2005 (Doc. 37), and December 1, 2005 (Doc. 38). 

This habeas petition was filed on February 2, 2004. On March 25, 2004,

respondents filed an answer to the petition. In their answer, respondents concede that the four

claims raised in the petition are exhausted in that petitioner has presented his claims to the state

court. Respondents also indicate, however, that an appeal of petitioner’s judgment and sentence

was pending as of the time the answer was filed. On March 29, 2005, the court stayed the instant

federal action pending resolution by the state court of petitioner’s appeal. The court

administratively closed this case and directed petitioner to file a motion to lift the stay within 20

Case 2:04-cv-00235-LKK -CMK Document 39 Filed 02/10/06 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

2

days of completion of state court proceedings. 

On July 27, 2005, petitioner filed a document entitled “Motion to Lift Stay on

Habeas Corpus.” On December 1, 2005, petitioner filed a document entitled “Motion for Relief

from Judgement Pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).” The court construes both

motions, taken together, as a motion to lift the stay pursuant to the March 29, 2005, order. 

Attached to the July 27, 2005, motion is a letter from petitioner’s state court counsel informing

petitioner that his appeal had been denied on April 20, 2004, and that counsel would not be

pursuing the matter further. Attached to the December 1, 2005, motion is a copy of the state

court remittitur issued on June 22, 2004, upon denial of petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner also

attaches the cover page of a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the California Supreme

Court on October 21, 2004. 

Based on the foregoing, it appears that petitioner’s claims are now pending before

the California Supreme Court. Petitioner has not indicated that the California Supreme Court

has resolved his case. Therefore, it is still not appropriate to lift the stay. 

Petitioner is reminded of his obligation pursuant to the March 29, 2005, order to

file a motion to lift the stay within 20 days of completion of proceedings in the California

Supreme Court. Petitioner should attach a copy of the California Supreme Court’s order to any

such motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s documents filed on

July 27, 2005 (Doc. 37), and December 1, 2005 (Doc. 38), are construed as a motion to lift the

stay and, so construed, the motion is denied. 

 DATED: February 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00235-LKK -CMK Document 39 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2