Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00580/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00580-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on April 13, 2012, challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) 

failure to credit Petitioner for the period between August 12, 2004 and July 25, 2007, during which 

Petitioner was incarcerated in a state facility while federal charges were pending. (Doc. 1, p. 9). On 

April 18, 2012, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition. (Doc. 4). On June 12, 

2012, Respondent filed the instant motion for stay of proceedings. (Doc. 12). In the motion, 

Respondent contends that a stay should be granted in the interest of judicial economy because the 

issues raised in the instant petition are presently pending before the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of New York and that exhaustion of the issue in that venue may result in Petitioner’s 

claims being adjudicated on their merits or relief being granted to Petitioner, either of which would 

CHRISTOPHER BRADLEY,

 Petitioner,

v.

H. A. RIOS, JR.,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00580-LJO-JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE STAY 

SHOULD NOT BE LIFTED FOR RESPONDENT’S 

FAILURE TO SUBMIT STATUS REPORTS 

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO FILE RESPONSE 

WITHIN 14 DAYS 

Case 1:12-cv-00580-LJO-JLT Document 22 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 2
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

effectively moot these proceedings. (Doc. 12, p. 3). Petitioner did not file a response to the motion 

for stay of proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court granted the motion for stay on November 8, 2012, and, in the same 

order, required Respondent to file regular status reports every sixty days. (Doc. 13). More or less 

regularly, Respondent complied with the Court’s order regarding the filing of status reports. However, 

Respondent’s last status report was filed on February 6, 2014, almost six months ago. (Doc. 21). 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Accordingly, Respondent is required to SHOW CAUSE, within 14 days of the date of service 

of this Order, why the stay should not be lifted and the proceedings resume due to Respondent’s 

failure to file regular status reports as required by the order dated November 8, 2012. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00580-LJO-JLT Document 22 Filed 08/01/14 Page 2 of 2