Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00105-1/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

 Petitioner is advised that he may file a motion for a stay and abeyance of his mixed 1

petition. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) and Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 n. 10

(“We note in passing that because Rhines has now authorized stays of mixed petitions, albeit in

limited circumstances, the three-step procedure [amending mixed petition, filing motion for stay

and abeyance, and filing motion for leave to amend when unexhausted claims are exhausted]

may fall into disuse.”)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK SHAUN LOVEDAY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0105 GEB DAD P

vs.

M. YARBOROUGH, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 6, 2005, respondent filed a motion to

dismiss and argued that one of petitioner’s six claims is unexhausted. Petitioner has not filed an 1

opposition to the motion. Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding

party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of

any opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00105-GEB-DAD Document 14 Filed 04/24/06 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

 The court makes no determination as to whether any habeas petition filed at a later date 2

will be timely under the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days from the service

of this order, petitioner shall file his opposition or statement of non-opposition to respondent’s

December 6, 2005 motion to dismiss. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result in

a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

2

DATED: April 21, 2006.

DAD:4

love105.46

Case 2:05-cv-00105-GEB-DAD Document 14 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 2