White v. Gipson

Filing 12

ORDER VACATING July 13, 2015 10 Order to Show Cause as to Why the Stay Should Not be Vacated; ORDER RENEWING Request to Show Cause as to Why the Stay Should Not be Vacated, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/8/2015. Response Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

1:14-cv-01214 MJS HC
JAMES E. WHITE,

ORDER VACATING JULY 13, 2015 ORDER
Petitioner, TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE STAY
SHOULD NOT BE VACATED (Doc. 10.)

12
13

v.

ORDER RENEWING REQUEST TO SHOW
CAUSE AS TO WHY THE STAY SHOULD
NOT BE VACATED

14
15
16

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

Response Due Within (30) Thirty Days

Respondent.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 6.)
On August 4, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition along with a motion to stay
the proceedings. (Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 2.) Petitioner requested the Court stay his
petition while he proceeded to attempt to exhaust his state court claims. The Court
granted the stay on August 26, 2014. (ECF No. 7.)
Over ten months have passed since the matter was stayed. On July 13, 2015, the
Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the matter should remain stayed. On July
29, 2015 Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause stating that his petition

28
1

1
2
3

with the California Supreme Court was still pending at the time of his response.
In light of Petitioner's response, the order to show cause issued on July 13, 2015
is VACATED.

4

However, the Court notes that according to the California Supreme Court website,

5

Petitioner's habeas petition was denied by the California Supreme Court on August 12,

6

2015. Accordingly, by way of this order, the Court again ORDERS Petitioner to show

7

cause why the stay should not be vacated in light of Petitioner's exhaustion of his claims

8

in state court.

9

ORDER

10

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

11

1.)

12

and

13

2.)

14

cause within thirty (30) days of service of this order explaining why the stay

15

should not be vacated in light of the potential exhaustion of his state court

16

remedies.

17

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of

18
19
20
21

The order to show cause issued on July 13, 2015 be VACATED (Doc. 10);

Petitioner is hereby ordered to file a response to the second order to show

the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 8, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2