Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00152/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00152-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael L. Banks
Petitioner
Debra Dexter
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL L. BANKS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

DEBRA DEXTER, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:09-cv-00152--BAK-SMS HC

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S SECOND MOTION TO

PROCEED ON PETITION (Doc. 10) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner filed his petition on January 26, 2009. (Doc. 1). On February 19, 2009, and again

on March 26, 2009, Petitioner filed motions to stay proceedings that were identical. (Docs. 6 & 7). 

On July 7, 2009, Petitioner file a “motion to proceed on petition,” in which Petitioner expressed his

wish to forego any stay and continue with the proceedings because, on June 30, 2009, the California

Supreme Court had denied his state petition that, apparently, raised the very issue that was the

subject of Petitioner’s two motions to stay. (Doc. 9). Petitioner indicated that because the issue was

now exhausted and because “that issue has already been incorporated in his pending petition,” he

wished to proceed with the petition as presently constituted. (Id.). Two days later, on July 9, 2009,

Petitioner filed a virtually identical motion to proceed on the petition. (Doc. 10). 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:09-cv-00152-LJO-JLT Document 24 Filed 03/04/10 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

On July 13, 2009, the Court issued an order construing Petitioner’s July 7, 2009 “motion to

proceed on petition” as a motion to withdraw his two prior motions for stay. (Doc. 14). So

construing Petitioner’s first motion to proceed, the Court granted that motion and disregarded the

two earlier motions for stay. (Id.). However, at the time of the July 13, 2009 order, the Court was

unaware Petitioner had filed yet another motion to proceed on July 9, 2009. (Doc. 10). Accordingly,

the Court addresses that order now and will deny that motion as moot in light of the Court’s order of

July 13, 2009.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed on petition filed on July 9, 2009 (Doc. 10), is DENIED

as MOOT in light of the Court’s order of July 13, 2009. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:09-cv-00152-LJO-JLT Document 24 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 2