Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01512/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01512-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IGNACIO ANDRES BULAHAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

HEIDI LACKNER, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-1512 KJM GGH P 

ORDER 

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 

the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Petitioner has also filed a motion for stay and abeyance pending exhaustion of his third 

claim for relief, which he states is currently pending before the state supreme court. Petitioner 

states that he filed a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court on December 12, 2014, 

but that it has not yet been decided. This court has searched the state supreme court database to 

determine the status of this case and it appears that the habeas petition filed in December 2014 

was denied on February 18, 2015. See 

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2095417&doc_no

=S223201. In light of this updated information, petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance will be 

Case 2:15-cv-01512-KJM-GGH Document 7 Filed 08/07/15 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

denied as moot, and this case will proceed on the current petition which now appears to be 

completely exhausted. 

Since petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is 

proved, respondent will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s habeas petition. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

 2. Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance, filed July 14, 2015 (ECF No. 3), is denied as 

moot; 

 3. Respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner’s habeas petition within sixty 

days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. An answer shall be 

accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues presented in the 

petition. See Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; 

 4. If the response to the habeas petition is an answer, petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be 

filed and served within thirty days after service of the answer; 

 5. If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or statement 

of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the 

motion, and respondent’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within fourteen days thereafter; 

and 

 6. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order, 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 Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General. 

Dated: August 6, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-01512-KJM-GGH Document 7 Filed 08/07/15 Page 2 of 2