Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00924/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00924-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN CAROLE HOLSOME,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0924 LKK GGH P 

vs.

DAVE RUNNELS, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

By Order, filed on 6/20/08, petitioner’s counsel was directed, within thirty days, to

inform the court whether state court exhaustion had been completed and whether the stay in this

matter should be lifted, this matter having been administratively closed since the Order, filed

3/28/06. In th 3/28/06 Order, this case was stayed pending exhaustion of state court remedies,

specifically, as to that portion of Claim 1 which implicates the constitutionality of California

criminal jury instruction (CALJIC) 2.50.02; petitioner, through his appointed counsel, was

directed to file a state court petition, within thirty days and, following exhaustion, to file a notice

of completed exhaustion within thirty days of the ruling by the state supreme court.

As further noted in the 6/20/08 Order, petitioner’s counsel sought and obtained an

extension of time, until 5/12/06, to file an exhaustion petition, which was granted by Order, filed

on 5/08/06. The court also observed that there had been no further communication with the court

Case 2:04-cv-00924-LKK-CHS Document 35 Filed 07/29/08 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

in this case, until two years later, on 6/04/08, when petitioner pro se filed his request seeking to

expedite adjudication of his petition. While informing petitioner that it was inappropriate for

him, while represented by counsel, to communicate to the court other than through his attorney,

the court nevertheless, given the passage of time with no further communication from counsel,

directed a response from petitioner’s counsel, as noted above. 

In response, counsel for petitioner has now informed the court, in extremely

laconic fashion, that no exhaustion petition was ever filed in state court and that lifting of the stay

appears appropriate. Petitioner’s counsel offers no explanation for the failure to file a state court

petition. The undersigned will consider whether sanctions should be imposed upon counsel for

petitioner.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The stay in this matter is now lifted;

2. The portion of claim 1 which implicates the constitutionality of CALJIC

2.50.02, previously dismissed as unexhausted, is hereby stricken from the 4/07/05, first amended

petition;

3. Respondent is directed to file an answer to the amended petition, as herein

modified (with reference to the 3/28/06, Order), within thirty days; petitioner will thereafter have

thirty days to file a reply/traverse, after which this matter will be deemed submitted.

DATED: 07/29/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

hols0924.ord2

Case 2:04-cv-00924-LKK-CHS Document 35 Filed 07/29/08 Page 2 of 2