Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00935/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00935-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sandra Pennywell
Respondent
Pech Sok
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on June 19, 2013. (Doc. 1). The petition raises the following 

claims: (1) Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was given Miranda warnings 

despite his poor understanding of English; and (2) the trial court erred in permitting a third expert to 

evaluate Petitioner’s competency to stand trial. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Concurrent with the filing of the 

petition, Petitioner filed a motion to stay proceedings while he exhausts additional claims in state 

court. (Doc. 3). Petitioner indicates that, in addition to the claims already exhausted, he wishes to 

exhaust the following additional claims: (1) Petitioner’s Fifth and Sixth amendment rights were 

violated when police elicited incriminating statements from Petitioner after his arrest; (2) the trial 

judge violated Petitioner’s due process rights by using three experts conclude that Petitioner was 

PECH SOK,

 Petitioner,

v.

SANDRA PENNYWELL,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00935-JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE STAY 

SHOULD NOT BE LIFTED FOR FAILURE TO 

SUBMIT STATUS REPORTS 

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO FILE RESPONSE 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 

Case 1:13-cv-00935-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 03/13/14 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

competent to stand trial; (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to conduct a reasonable 

pre-trial investigation; (4) Petitioner’s due process rights were violated when he was tried while 

incompetent; (5) Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated when the prosecutor, in closing 

argument, indirectly referenced Petitioner’s failure to testify; and (6) Petitioner was denied the right to 

effective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to request that the jury be polled after the 

verdict was read. To date, Respondent has not filed an opposition to the motion to stay proceedings.

On June 27, 2013, the Court granted Petitioner’s request for issuance of a stay of proceedings. 

(Doc. 6). That order, however, expressly required Petitioner to submit regular status reports every 

sixty days to inform the Court of the status of Petitioner’s exhaustion efforts. Petitioner filed his first 

status report on August 19, 2013. (Doc. 8). However, since that date, a period of almost seven 

months, Petitioner has not filed any status reports. Indeed, the Court has not had any communication

from Petitioner since the filing of the August 19, 2013 status report.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Accordingly, Petitioner is required to SHOW CAUSE within thirty days of the date of service 

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

to file regular status reports as required by the order dated June 27, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00935-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 03/13/14 Page 2 of 2