Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01686/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01686-3/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTHONY KENNEDY,

Petitioner,

v.

J. GASTELO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-01686-YGR (PR)

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND 

DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THE WRIT SHOULD 

NOT BE GRANTED

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On June 9, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Petitioner’s request for a stay of 

proceedings while he returned to state court to exhaust his state judicial remedies. On Friday, 

September 29, 2017, Petitioner informed the Court that his state proceedings had concluded, and 

he filed a first amended habeas petition containing his exhausted claims.

Before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to lift the stay and his implied motion for leave to 

file his first amended petition. 

Good cause appearing, Petitioner’s motion to lift the stay is GRANTED. Petitioner is also 

GRANTED leave to file his first amended petition. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mark 

Petitioner’s first amended petition as filed on Monday, September 25, 2017, the date it was 

received.

The Clerk of the Court shall REOPEN this case and serve a copy of this Order and the first 

amended petition and all attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the 

Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on 

Petitioner at his most current address. 

Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, within sixty (60) days of 

Case 4:16-cv-01686-YGR Document 22 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the issuance of this Order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent 

shall file with the answer a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed 

previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the 

Court and serving it on Respondent within sixty (60) days of his receipt of the answer. Otherwise, 

the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision sixty days after the date Petitioner is 

served with Respondent’s answer. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court, 

whether by way of formal legal motions or informal letters, must be served on Respondent by 

mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. 

Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. Any 

motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the 

deadline sought to be extended.

This Order terminates Docket no. 21.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

October 11, 2017

Case 4:16-cv-01686-YGR Document 22 Filed 10/11/17 Page 2 of 2