Olmos v. Ryan et al
Filing
9
ORDER that Petitioner's June 16, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 8) is denied. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/28/2011.(KMG)
1
WO
KM
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Timothy Paul Olmos,
10
Petitioner,
11
vs.
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 11-914-PHX-GMS (MEA)
ORDER
15
16
Petitioner Timothy Paul Olmos, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-
17
Eyman, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
18
and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a June 7, 2011 Order, the Court
19
granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Petition because Petitioner has
20
proceedings still pending in state court.
21
On June 16, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 8). Petitioner
22
argues that because the claims in his Petition have been exhausted, he should be allowed to
23
proceed with his federal habeas petition. Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect. The Court may
24
not consider Petitioner’s federal habeas claims until all proceedings in the state courts have
25
concluded, regardless of whether Petitioner’s federal claims are exhausted. See Sherwood
26
v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (even where claim to be challenged has been
27
finally settled in state courts, petitioner must await outcome of his appeal in state court before
28
1
remedies are exhausted); Schnepp v. Oregon, 333 F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1964) (per curiam)
2
(pending post-conviction proceedings precluded grant of writ of habeas corpus). The Court
3
will deny Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
4
5
6
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s June 16, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. 8) is denied.
DATED this 28th day of June, 2011.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?