Bryant v. Muniz
ORDER Granting Motion to Withdraw Motion to Stay re 16 , 17 , 29 ; ORDER Requiring Respondent to File Supplemental Response, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/18/16. Sixty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1:16-cv-00190 DAD MJS HC
SAMUEL XAVIER BRYANT,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
Petitioner, WITHDRAW MOTION TO STAY
(Docs. 16, 17, 29)
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO
FILE SUPPLIMENTAL RESPONSE
W. MUNIZ, Warden,
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On February 11, 2016, the Court screened the petition, and ordered Respondent
to file a response to the petition. On April 21, 2016, Petitioner moved the Court to stay
the petition to introduce two additional claims he had yet to exhaust in state court. (ECF
No. 17.) On May 9, 2016, Petitioner also moved to amend the petition. (ECF No. 19.)
The Court granted the motion to amend, but recommended that the motion to stay be
denied without prejudice since the unexhausted claims were not included in the original
petition. (ECF Nos. 17, 22.) Petitioner filed a first amended petition on June 16, 2016,
asserting three additional, yet-to-be exhausted claims. (Am. Pet., ECF No. 26.) Then, on
July 29, 2016, Petitioner filed a renewed motion to stay the amended petition while he
attempted to exhaust remedies in state court. (Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 29.) Petitioner
asserts that he presented the three newly added claims to the California Supreme Court
on June 16, 2016. (Id.)
On September 12, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the
motion to stay should be granted as it appeared that the newly added claims had been
presented to the California Supreme Court and therefore exhausted. (Order, ECF No.
31.) On September 26, 2016, Petitioner agreed that the claims were exhausted and
moved to withdraw his motion to stay. (ECF No. 33.) Accordingly, Petitioner's motions to
stay and the findings and recommendations relating thereto are hereby WITHDRAWN.
Respondent filed an answer to the petition on May 11, 2016. (Answer, ECF No.
21.) However, as the petition now contains new and additional claims, Respondent shall
have an opportunity to file a supplemental response to the amended petition to address
the new claims and any new or additional defenses based on the amendments to the
petition. The supplemental response is due within sixty (60) days of the date of this
order. Petitioner may respond to the supplemental response in accordance with the
Court’s briefing schedule issued on February 11, 2016. (ECF No. 6.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 18, 2016
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?