Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01160/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01160-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORNELIUS L. JONES,

Petitioner,

v.

W. J. SULLIVAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-1160 WBS DB P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2014 convictions for attempted 

murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault likely to cause great bodily injury. Presently 

before the court is petitioner’s renewed motion for stay. (ECF No. 13.) 

I. Motion for Stay

Petitioner initiated this action by filing the original petition on June 24, 2019. (ECF No. 

1.) After filing the original petition, petitioner filed a motion to amend along with a proposed 

amended petition. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) The court granted the motion to amend and determined it 

would screen the petition by separate order. (ECF No. 12.) 

Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion seeking a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 

269 (2005). The court found that because the amended petition was fully exhausted, it could not 

grant a stay pursuant to Rhines, but that a stay pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:19-cv-01160-WBS-DB Document 14 Filed 01/21/20 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

2003), overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007), may be 

appropriate. However, the court declined to impose a stay pursuant to Kelly without input from 

petitioner. Thus, the motion was denied without prejudice and petitioner was directed move for a 

stay pursuant to Kelly or amend the petition and seek a Rhines stay.

Petitioner has now filed a motion seeking a stay of this action pursuant to Kelly. (ECF 

No. 13.) The court has determined that it is necessary to hear from respondent before the court 

can rule on the motion for stay.

II. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner’s motion for stay (ECF No. 13)

within thirty days from the date of this order. Respondent shall not file a response to the

petition at this time.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order, a copy of petitioner’s

motion for stay (ECF No. 13), the form Consent to Proceed Before a United States

Magistrate Judge, and a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 on Tami Krenzin, Supervising Deputy Attorney General.

Dated: January 21, 2020 

DB:12

DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Habeas/jone1160.stay.resp

Case 2:19-cv-01160-WBS-DB Document 14 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 2