Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00190/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00190-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Samuel Xavier Bryant
Petitioner
W. Muniz
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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL XAVIER BRYANT,

Petitioner,

v.

W. MUNIZ, Warden,

Respondent.

1:16-cv-00190 DAD MJS HC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW MOTION TO STAY

(Docs. 16, 17, 29)

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO 

FILE SUPPLIMENTAL RESPONSE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 11, 2016, the Court screened the petition, and ordered Respondent 

to file a response to the petition. On April 21, 2016, Petitioner moved the Court to stay 

the petition to introduce two additional claims he had yet to exhaust in state court. (ECF

No. 17.) On May 9, 2016, Petitioner also moved to amend the petition. (ECF No. 19.) 

The Court granted the motion to amend, but recommended that the motion to stay be 

denied without prejudice since the unexhausted claims were not included in the original 

petition. (ECF Nos. 17, 22.) Petitioner filed a first amended petition on June 16, 2016, 

asserting three additional, yet-to-be exhausted claims. (Am. Pet., ECF No. 26.) Then, on 

July 29, 2016, Petitioner filed a renewed motion to stay the amended petition while he 

Case 1:16-cv-00190-DAD-HBK Document 34 Filed 10/18/16 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

attempted to exhaust remedies in state court. (Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 29.) Petitioner 

asserts that he presented the three newly added claims to the California Supreme Court 

on June 16, 2016. (Id.) 

On September 12, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the 

motion to stay should be granted as it appeared that the newly added claims had been

presented to the California Supreme Court and therefore exhausted. (Order, ECF No. 

31.) On September 26, 2016, Petitioner agreed that the claims were exhausted and 

moved to withdraw his motion to stay. (ECF No. 33.) Accordingly, Petitioner's motions to 

stay and the findings and recommendations relating thereto are hereby WITHDRAWN.

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on May 11, 2016. (Answer, ECF No. 

21.) However, as the petition now contains new and additional claims, Respondent shall 

have an opportunity to file a supplemental response to the amended petition to address 

the new claims and any new or additional defenses based on the amendments to the 

petition. The supplemental response is due within sixty (60) days of the date of this 

order. Petitioner may respond to the supplemental response in accordance with the 

Court’s briefing schedule issued on February 11, 2016. (ECF No. 6.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00190-DAD-HBK Document 34 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2