Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00912/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00912-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Clark
Petitioner
Matevousian
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON CLARK,

Petitioner,

v.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-00912-JLT (HC)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION FOR STAY (Doc. No. 13)

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO 

FILE STATUS REPORT EVERY SIXTY 

DAYS 

In this action, Petitioner challenges his sentence based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). 

On September 15, 2016, Respondent filed a motion requesting to stay these proceedings. 

Respondent advises that Petitioner is currently litigating a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

in the District of Nebraska and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal based on a Johnson challenge 

to his sentence. See Case No. 8:12-cr-00243-LSC-TDT-1 (D. Neb.). On June 17, 2016, the 

Eighth Circuit issued “General Order No. 2016-07” regarding Johnson claims, and this order was 

filed on Petitioner’s docket providing Petitioner with leave to amend his § 2255 motion. See C.A. 

No. 16-2995 (8th Cir.). The appeal in the Eighth Circuit is currently ongoing. Since both the 

instant § 2241 petition and the § 2255 motions in the Eighth Circuit seek relief based on Johnson, 

and the § 2255 litigation predates the § 2241 petition, Respondent seeks a stay of the proceedings 

until such time as the § 2255 litigation is resolved. Respondent argues that this will conserve 

Case 1:16-cv-00912-LJO-JLT Document 15 Filed 10/03/16 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

judicial and government resources, prevent conflicting rulings on overlapping claims, prevent 

resulting confusion, and allow the parties to concentrate on the ongoing § 2255 motion. 

Respondent represents that he has been in contact with Petitioner’s attorney in the § 2255 

litigation, and by and through his attorney, Petitioner does not oppose said stay. The Court agrees 

with Respondent and finds good cause to order a stay of the proceedings. Respondent will be 

directed to keep the Court updated with the status of the § 2255 litigation so the instant case does 

not linger indefinitely on the Court’s docket. Once the § 2255 litigation is resolved, the Court 

will lift the stay and proceed with this case, as necessary. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1) Respondent’s motion to stay proceedings in this case is GRANTED;

2) This case is STAYED pending resolution of Petitioner’s ongoing § 2255 litigation;

3) Respondent is DIRECTED to file a status report advising the Court of the status of 

the § 2255 litigation within sixty days, and then every sixty days thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00912-LJO-JLT Document 15 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 2