Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01373/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01373-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD THOMAS BUNN, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

RAUL LOPEZ,

Respondent.

No. 2:11-cv-1373 MCE CKD P (TEMP)

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order dated January 28, 2016, this court ordered the 

parties to file supplemental briefing addressing petitioner’s claim that his sentence of life without 

parole plus 25 years-to-life constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in light of the recent 

decision of the United States Supreme Court in Montgomery v. Louisiana, No. 14-280, 2016 WL 

280758 (USSC Jan. 25, 2016) and the decision of the California Supreme Court in People v. 

Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (2014). Petitioner filed his supplemental brief on February 9, 2016, 

and respondent filed his brief on March 9, 2016. In his brief, respondent argues that petitioner’s 

Eighth Amendment Claim has been rendered unexhausted in light of Montgomery and Miller v. 

Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). After a review of the record and the relevant 

law, the court intends to recommend that this action be administratively stayed in order to allow 

petitioner to exhaust his Eighth Amendment claim in state court. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 

Case 2:11-cv-01373-MCE-CKD Document 45 Filed 03/17/16 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

2

269 (2005); King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). However, before issuing findings and 

recommendations to that effect, the court will grant the parties the opportunity to express any 

objections they may have to imposing a stay of this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that within fourteen days from the date of this order, the 

parties may file briefs stating their objections, if any, to a stay of this action for the purpose of 

allowing petitioner to exhaust his Eighth Amendment claim in state court. If the parties agree that 

a stay is advisable, they may file a stipulation to that effect.

Dated: March 17, 2016

Mou8(2):bunn1373.stay(du)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-01373-MCE-CKD Document 45 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 2