Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00804/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00804-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK RAY BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

A.P. KANE, WARDEN

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00804 AWI SMS HC

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW REGARDING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 23, 2006. On this

same date, Petitioner also filed a motion to stay the proceedings while he exhausts the state court

remedies with respect to new claims. (Court Doc. 3.) 

In his motion to stay the proceedings, Petitioner requests “permission to exhaust his new

issues presented in a second petition submitted to the California Supreme Court, Case Number

S137701. The issues will be additional to the first petition submitted to the California Supreme

Court, Case Number S135392.” (Motion, at 1.) Petitioner states that he is relying on Acosta v.

Artuz, 235 F.3d 117, 125 (2d Cir. 2000) and Anthony v. Cambra, 235 F.3d 568 (9 Cir. 2000), as th

the reason for his delay in filing this petition. (Id.) 

On July 31, 2006, the Court issued an order to show cause why Petitioner’s motion to

stay the proceedings should be granted in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rhines v.

Case 1:06-cv-00804-SMS Document 10 Filed 09/15/06 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

27

28

2

Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). 

Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause on August 22, 2006. (Court Doc.

9.) Petitioner states that his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious; however, Petitioner

has not provided the Court with a copy of the second petition filed in the California Supreme

Court, case number S137701, and it is unclear to the Court what claims are pending at that Court. 

Further, Petitioner states that he has been diligently pursing his claims. However, Petitioner has

not provided the date that the second petition was filed in the California Supreme Court. This

information will be helpful to the Court in resolving Petitioner’s pending motion to stay. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within THIRTY (30) days from the date of

service of this order, Petitioner shall file a second response to the Court’s July 31, 2006, order to

show cause, addressing the concerns outlined herein. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00804-SMS Document 10 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 2