Spivey v. McDonald

Filing 39

ORDER Dismissing Petitioner's Motion For Clarification (Doc. 38 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/2/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11 W. C. SPIVEY, III,

Case No. 1:12-cv-00206-LJO-SKO-HC

12

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (DOC. 38)

13

Petitioner,
v.

14
15
16

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,
Respondent.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254.

The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 303.
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for clarification
filed on April 30, 2014.
On October 17, 2013, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for a
stay of the proceedings to permit Petitioner to exhaust new claims.
In the motion for clarification, Petitioner seeks information
regarding the status of Petitioner’s old and new claims.

28
1

1

The Court’s order is self-explanatory.

The petition proceeds

2 on Petitioner’s initially filed claims, which Respondent has
3 answered, and as to which Petitioner has filed a traverse.
4

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for clarification is DISMISSED

5 as moot.
6
7
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10

Dated:

September 2, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2