Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00575/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00575-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO N.,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et.al.,

Respondents.

 /

1:12-cv-00575-BAM (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE

A RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST

TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS TO

EXHAUST CERTAIN CLAIMS IN THE

STATE COURTS

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. Petitioner is represented by David Mugridge, Esq. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 10, 2012. In the

body of the petition, Petitioner indicates that he has exhausted some, but not all, of the claims

raised therein. Petitioner specifically states:

In the present case, Petitioner has exhausted some, but not all, of his state

court remedies through the Appeals Process in state court. The claims raised in

the instant Petitioner were not contained in the trial record, and therefore could

not be raised through direct appeal. Habeas investigation has, as yet, failed to

locate crucial witnesses that, it is believed, will corroborate Petitioner’s alibi

defense. Petitioner filed the instant Petition to preserve his federal deadline, and

this Petitioner will be amended if and when the required information becomes

available. Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Fresno

County Superior Court and will file a petition in the California Supreme Court if

relief is not granted at the Superior Court level.

Petitioner is filing the instant Petitioner to meet the timely filing

requirement under AEPDA, and will file any subsequent information necessary

pending the outcome of the investigation and state proceedings as soon as

possible. Petitioner requests this court exercise its discretion and hold this

Petitioner in abeyance pending the outcome of the state court petitioner, and the

1

Case 1:12-cv-00575-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 07/16/12 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

exhaustion of his state court remedies. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-278

(2005). 

(Petition, at 11-12.) 

The Court directs Respondent to file a response to Petitioner’s request to stay and hold

the petition in abeyance pending exhaustion in the state courts. Accordingly, it is HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file

a response to Petitioner’s request for a stay and abeyance; and

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date Respondent files a response, Petitioner may

file a reply. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 13, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-00575-LJO-SKO Document 8 Filed 07/16/12 Page 2 of 2