Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01996/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01996-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH STEVEN THOMASON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1996 GEB KJM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his July 1, 2002 convictions for assault

with a deadly weapon and threatening to inflict great bodily injury and the finding that he had

suffered prior felony convictions. 

By an order filed May 5, 2005, the original petition was dismissed because it

contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims and petitioner’s request for a stay in order to

complete exhaustion was denied. On May 31, 2005, petitioner filed an amended petition

containing only the exhausted claim and a request for information on how to proceed once the

California Supreme Court has acted on his exhaustion petition, which the court will interpret as a

renewed request for a stay.

Petitioner has alleged that the claims now pending in the California courts were

not exhausted earlier because appellate counsel refused to raise them; petitioner has shown cause

Case 2:04-cv-01996-GEB -KJM Document 8 Filed 07/29/05 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

2

for his failure to exhaust earlier. The claims themselves include judicial bias and prosecutorial

misconduct, including a violation of the duty under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); the

court cannot find that these claims are “plainly meritless.” Rhines v. Weber, U.S. , 125

S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s May 31, 2005 request for a stay of proceedings is granted;

2. Within ninety days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file a status report

on the progress of the state exhaustion petition.

3. If the state exhaustion proceeding is not completed within one hundred eighty

days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file a second status report, and further reports at

ninety day intervals until the exhaustion process is completed.

4. Within thirty days of the California Supreme Court’s resolution of the state

action, petitioner shall file a motion to lift the stay together with either a motion to dismiss the

action or a motion to file a second amended petition, along with a copy of the proposed second

amended petition.

5. Petitioner is advised his failure to comply with the time limits of this order

may result in an order lifting the stay.

DATED: July 28, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

thom1996.sty

Case 2:04-cv-01996-GEB -KJM Document 8 Filed 07/29/05 Page 2 of 2