Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00355/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00355-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
K. Harrington
Respondent
Keith Seriales
Petitioner

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH SERIALES,

Petitioner,

vs.

K. HARRINGTON,

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-00355-JLT (HC)

ORDER GRANTING PETITION THIRTY

DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE AN

AMENDED PETITION

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE

COURT TO SEND PETITIONER A FORM

FOR FILING A HABEAS PETITION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO VACATE BRIEFING

SCHEDULE (Doc. 16)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RULING

(Doc. 18)

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254.

On August 21, 2009, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition and set a

briefing schedule. (Doc. 12). On October 20, 2009, Respondent filed a motion to vacate the August

21, 2009 briefing schedule, alleging that Petitioner had filed a Petition for Review in the California

Supreme Court seeking to exhaust certain state court claims, that the state court had ordered

Respondent to file a response to the state petition, that a decision by the state court was expected by

December 1, 2009, and that therefore the Court should modify the briefing schedule to permit

Case 1:09-cv-00355-BAM Document 21 Filed 01/06/10 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

Respondent to file a response, if any, at some point after the state court had issued its ruling. (Doc.

16). Petitioner filed a response to Respondent’s motion, as well as a subsequent motion requesting a

ruling on Respondent’s motion by this Court. (Docs. 16; 18). On December 29, 2009, Petitioner

filed a notice that the California Supreme Court had denied Petitioner’s Petition for Review, thus

exhausting his claims in state court. (Doc. 20). 

Because it now appears that the state court has issued its ruling on Petitioner’s claims, the

Court will permit Petitioner to file a motion to amend his original petition to include the newly

exhausted claims. The Court will then conduct a preliminary screening of the amended petition to

determine if a response is warranted. Under such circumstances, Respondent’s motion to vacate the

original briefing schedule will be granted. The Court’s rulings render moot Petitioner’s motion

requesting a ruling. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. The Court GRANTS Petitioner thirty days from the date of service of this order to file

an amended petition, which may include any original claims as well as newlyexhausted claims that Petitioner wishes to raise. If Petitioner does not choose to file

an amended petition, the case will proceed on the original petition and claims

contained therein. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a form for filing a habeas

corpus petition pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2254.

3. Respondent’s motion to vacate the briefing schedule (Doc. 16), is GRANTED. The

briefing schedule of August 21, 2009, as set forth in Document 12, is vacated. The

Court will issue a new briefing schedule, if appropriate, in due course.

4. Petitioner’s motion for ruling (Doc. 18), is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00355-BAM Document 21 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 2