Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02671/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02671-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro A. Ramirez
Petitioner
Burno Stolc
Respondent

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEDRO A. RAMIREZ,

Petitioner, No. 2:12-cv-02671 KJM KJN P

vs.

 BURNO STOLC, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On October 31, 2012, this court granted petitioner’s request to stay this habeas

corpus action pending the state court exhaustion of two of petitioner’s three claims. (ECF No.

4.) Petitioner was directed to file in this court, within thirty days after the California Supreme

Court issued a final order resolving petitioner’s Claims One and Two, a motion requesting that

the stay be lifted and leave of court be granted to file an amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus, together with the proposed amended petition. (Id.) 

On July 29, 2013, petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

(ECF No. 7.) The amended petition contains only petitioner’s Claims One and Two, which now

appear to be exhausted. However, the amended petition does not include petitioner’s original

Claim Three. Nor is the amended petition accompanied by a request that the stay in this action

be lifted. The omission of petitioner’s third claim, if intended by petitioner, may indicate that his

1

Case 2:12-cv-02671-KJM-BMK Document 8 Filed 09/06/13 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

original petition was not “mixed” (containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims), as

petitioner then claimed, and thus could not be “stayed and abeyed.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S.

269 (2005). If plaintiff intentionally omitted his Claim Three, he must expressly inform the

court, in which event the court will re-evaluate the propriety of the stay that was previously

granted.

Alternatively, petitioner may file a Second Amended Petition that includes all

three of petitioner’s claims, provided petitioner intends to proceed on all three claims.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner shall, within thirty (30) days after service of this order, file a motion

requesting that the stay in this action be lifted (on the ground that petitioner has now exhausted

all of his state court remedies), accompanied by one of the following:

A. A request for leave of court to file a “Second Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus,” which includes all three of petitioner’s claims, a copy of which is attached to

petitioner’s motion; 

OR

B. A statement that petitioner seeks to drop his Claim Three, with an explanation

why this action should proceed on petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, which contains only petitioner’s Claims One and Two. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the form used in this

district for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 6, 2013

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/rami2671.amd.pet

2

Case 2:12-cv-02671-KJM-BMK Document 8 Filed 09/06/13 Page 2 of 2