Scott Forrest Collins v. Kevin Chappell
Filing
51
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge John F. Walter. Petitioner's counsel is ordered to show cause in writing by January 23, 2015, why the Petition should not be dismissed because it contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. See Ro se v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). The filing of a properly noticed Motion to Stay Pending Exhaustion will serve to respond to this Order to Show Cause, along with a declaration of counsel explaining their failure to timely file the Motion to Stay. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jloz)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-7334-JFW
Title:
Scott Forrest Collins -v- Kevin Chappell
Date: January 16, 2015
PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy
None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On January 6, 2015, Petitioner’s counsel filed a supplemental response pursuant to the
Court’s November 13, 2014 and December 12, 2014 Orders directing Petitioner’s counsel to file a
response to issues raised by Petitioner in the letters he sent to the Court on November 10, 2014
and December 9, 2014. In their supplemental response, Petitioner’s counsel state that they met
with Petitioner at the San Quentin State Prison, and after speaking with him, Petitioner has decided
that he no longer wishes to withdraw his penalty phase claims nor does he seek the appointment
of new counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s counsel represents that the issues have been resolved
and suggests that litigation of the case should continue according to the previously established
schedule.
On October 30, 2014, the Court entered an Order based on the parties stipulated briefing
schedule re: exhaustion. Pursuant to that Order, Petitioner’s counsel were required to file a Motion
to Stay Pending Exhaustion within thirty days of the filing of the parties Joint Stipulation re:
Exhaustion. Respondent’s Opposition and Petitioner’s Reply were to be filed according to the local
and this Court’s rules governing motion practice. On November 5, 2014, Petitioner’s counsel filed
a Motion to Stay. Because Petitioner’s Motion to Stay did not designate a hearing date, on
November 7, 2014, the Motion to Stay was stricken. See Docket No. 37. As of the date of this
Order, Petitioner has failed to file a Motion to Stay as required by the Court’s October 30, 2014,
Order.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to show cause in writing by January 23, 2015,
why the Petition should not be dismissed because it contains both exhausted and unexhausted
claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). The filing of a properly noticed Motion to Stay
Pending Exhaustion will serve to respond to this Order to Show Cause, along with a declaration of
counsel explaining their failure to timely file the Motion to Stay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
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?