Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01436/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01436-0/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 06cv1436-J (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS TORREZ VELASQUEZ, 

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT AYERS JR., Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv1436-J(NLS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF

PROCEEDINGS;

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR

PETITIONER TO FILE A FIRST

AMENDED PETITION

[Doc. No. 7]

On June 1, 2006, Petitioner Carlos Torrez Velasquez, a California state prisoner proceeding pro

se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Central District of California [Doc. No. 1]. On July

14, 2006, the case was transferred to this Court, which properly has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s case. 

On August 21, 2006, the presiding District Judge dismissed the petition without prejudice and with

leave to amend [Doc. No. 4]. Petitioner was instructed to file his first amended petition no later than

October 23, 2006. Petitioner requested an extension of time, and the Court set a deadline of November

7, 2006 by which to file the amended petition [Doc. No. 5]. On October 27, 2006, Petitioner instead

filed an “Application for Stay of Proceedings under Rhines Pending Exhaustion of State Remedies as to

Unexhausted Claims; Request to Substitute Name of Respondent” [Doc. No. 7]. 

Petitioner appears to argue in his Application that the federal due process claim he wishes to

present in this Court has been exhausted, but that it would be futile for him to file an amended petition

Case 3:06-cv-01436-J-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/15/06 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 06cv1436-J (NLS)

containing such a claim without a prior finding of exhaustion. It appears he has misread the District

Court’s August 22, 2006 Order of dismissal, which merely found that Petitioner had not adequately

presented his claim as a federal claim, and which also found that Petitioner had not named the proper

Respondent. The Court instructed Petitioner that his petition was being dismissed without prejudice and

with leave to amend. The Court also advised Petitioner that in order have his case re-opened, it would

be necessary to file a first amended petition correcting the deficiencies in his original complaint. 

Petitioner has failed to do so. Instead, he has requested a stay and abeyance. However, this request is

not appropriate since there is no operative petition in this case to hold in abeyance, nor is there any

evidence currently before Court from which to conclude that a stay is either necessary or warranted -

particularly in light of Petitioner’s current representation that he believes his federal claim has been

properly exhausted. (Petitioner’s Application, 5.) Therefore, Petitioner’s Application is DENIED

without prejudice. Petitioner is once again advised that in order to re-open this case, he must file a First

Amended Petition, stating a cognizable federal claim, and naming a proper Respondent, either the

warden in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the

Director of the California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379

(9th Cir. 1992)(per curiam). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Petitioner shall file his

First Amended Petition no later than December 11, 2006 in conformance with this Order and the

District Court’s August 22, 2006 Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2006

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01436-J-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 2