Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01277/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01277-2/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

MARCELO RUBIO, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYTHEL FISHER1,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-1277 CKD P

ORDER

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner challenges his 2013 conviction for first 

degree burglary and related enhancements, for which he is serving a prison term of ten years. 

(Id.; see Lod. Doc. 1.) On June 27, 2016, the court directed respondent to file a response to the 

petition.2 (ECF No. 9.) 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as premature, as review of petitioner’s 

sentence is still pending in the state courts. (ECF No. 14.) Petitioner’s claims that his burglary 

conviction was supported by insufficient evidence and obtained in violation of his due process 

 

1 As Raythel Fisher is the Warden of Valley State Prison, where petitioner is incarcerated, the 

court will grant respondent’s request to substitute Fisher as the respondent in this action. See

Fed. R. C. Proc. 25(d)(1); Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992).

2 Both parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all proceedings in this 

action. (ECF Nos. 8 & 16.)

Case 2:16-cv-01277-WBS-CKD Document 21 Filed 10/26/16 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

rights were exhausted in the state courts on January 15, 2015. (Lod. Docs. 2-4.) Thus, it appears 

the claims in the petition are fully exhausted. However, petitioner’s efforts to have his sentence 

reduced were still being litigated in the state courts at the time the motion to dismiss was filed. 

(Lod. Docs. 5-7.)

Instead of opposing the motion, petitioner filed a motion to stay proceedings while he 

completes review of his sentencing claims in the state courts. (ECF No. 17.) Respondent filed a 

statement of non-opposition to petitioner’s motion to stay. (ECF No. 20.) Thus, this action will 

be stayed until direct review of petitioner’s judgment and sentence is completed in the state 

courts. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is denied as moot; 

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF No. 17) is granted; 

3. Within thirty days from the date of any order by the California Supreme Court 

addressing petitioner’s pending state claims, petitioner shall file a motion to lift the stay of this 

action; 

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Raythel Fisher as respondent in the docket 

of this action; and 

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this case.

Dated: October 26, 2016

2 / rubi1277.stay

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01277-WBS-CKD Document 21 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 2