Huerta v. Davis
Filing
15
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/21/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ARTURO HUERTA,
12
Case No. 1:15-cv-01827-SAB-HC
Petitioner,
13
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
v.
14
RON DAVIS,
15
Respondent.
16
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28
17
18 U.S.C. § 2254. In the answer, Respondent asserts that two claims in the petition are unexhausted
1
19 but should be denied on the merits. (ECF No. 10 at 20, 25). In the traverse, Petitioner states that
20 he filed a state habeas petition in the superior court on February 16, 2016 in order to exhaust the
21 two unexhausted claims. Additionally, Petitioner requests that the Court hold the petition in
22 abeyance pending resolution of the unexhausted claims in state court. (ECF No. 12 at 5). “Stay
23 and abeyance” is available only in “limited circumstances,” and only when: (1) there is “good
24 cause” for the failure to exhaust; (2) the unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless”; and (3)
25 the petitioner did not intentionally engage in dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines v. Weber, 544
26 U.S. 269, 277–78 (2005).
27
28
1
Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.
1
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:
1
2
1. Within THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall file
3
a brief addressing exhaustion and whether he is entitled to “stay and abeyance”
4
under Rhines;
2. Respondent shall file a response within TWENTY-ONE (21) days of the date of
5
service of Petitioner’s brief; and
6
3. Petitioner may file a reply within SEVEN (7) days of the date of service of
7
Respondent’s reply.
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 Dated:
April 21, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?