Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00951/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00951-2/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

KEVIN LAQUAN TRICE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

M. McDONALD, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:11-cv—00951-LJO-SKO-HC

ORDER PERMITTING RESPONDENT TO

FILE NO LATER THAN FOURTEEN (14)

DAYS AFTER SERVICE FINAL BRIEFING

CONCERNING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR A STAY

ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER TO

FILE A REPLY NO LATER THAN TWENTY

(20) DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF ANY

FURTHER BRIEFING BY RESPONDENT

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO RESPONDENT

PROHIBITING FURTHER UNNECESSARY

DELAY IN BRIEFING THIS MOTION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on August 12, 2011, on

the ground that some of the claims in the petition were

unexhausted. A second, duplicative motion to dismiss was filed

on August 15, 2011. Petitioner filed opposition on October 18,

2011. No reply was filed. Thus, the motion to dismiss is ripe

for decision.

1

Case 1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO Document 27 Filed 12/08/11 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

However, Petitioner filed motions for a stay and abeyance of

the action on August 22, 2011, and on October 17, 2011, in which

he sought a stay, including but not limited to a stay based on

good cause pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78

(2005).

On November 1, 2011, Respondent filed what was entitled as a

“CONDITIONAL NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A STAY

AND ABEYANCE,” in which Respondent stated opposition to a Rhines

stay because of what Respondent perceives as a lack of good cause

for a stay. Respondent suggested a stay pursuant to Kelly v.

Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), and further stated that if

Petitioner “should disagree with this procedure,” Respondent

sought thirty (30) days to file formal opposition to the motion.

In light of Petitioner’s failure to reply to Respondent’s

conditional non-opposition, Respondent is GRANTED thirty days in

which to file a formal opposition to Petitioner’s motion for a

stay. Respondent is INFORMED that no further delay in

Respondent’s briefing of this motion will be permitted absent a

particularized showing of good cause supported by a showing made

by declaration under penalty of perjury.

Petitioner may FILE a reply to any formal opposition filed

by Respondent no later than twenty (20) days after the date of

service of Respondent’s opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-00951-LJO-SKO Document 27 Filed 12/08/11 Page 2 of 2