Jimenez v. Sutton
SECOND ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Motion to Stay Should Be Granted signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/12/2017. Show Cause Response or Notice to Withdraw Motion due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:17-cv-00333 MJS (HC)
SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
Petitioner, MOTION TO STAY SHOULD BE GRANTED
(ECF No. 2)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges an August 6, 2013 conviction
from the Kern County Superior Court for two counts of second degree murder, two
counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and driving with a suspended
license. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) In his petition, Petitioner presents five claims for relief
including claims for insufficient evidence, instructional error, violation of the Fourth
Amendment, improper admission of evidence, and sentencing error. (See Pet.)
Petitioner filed the instant petition on March 8, 2017. (Pet.) On the same date,
Petitioner filed a motion to stay the petition. (Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 2.) In the motion,
Petitioner states that he wants to raise additional federal grounds that had not been
raised or exhausted in state court. (Id.) However, Petitioner did not provide further
explanation as to which claims were unexhausted or as to his efforts seeking exhaustion
of those claims in state court. (Id.)
On April 14, 2017, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why his motion to
stay should be granted. (ECF No. 5.) Specifically, the Court ordered Petitioner to state
which of his claims were unexhausted and what efforts he has made to exhaust those
claims. (Id.) Petitioner was given thirty days to respond to the Order. Petitioner filed a
timely response to the Order to Show Cause on May 15, 2017. (ECF No. 6.) While
Petitioner outlined his efforts to exhaust claims in state court, as well as provided
detailed background information on the reasons why these claims were not exhausted,
Petitioner’s response to the Order to Show Cause was incomplete.
In particular, Petitioner has not presented sufficient information regarding whether
he has presented a mixed petition. It is still not clear whether the claims presented in the
Petition are fully exhausted or whether Petitioner is still exhausting some or all of those
claims. To fully respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Petitioner shall provide the
Court with a comprehensive list of the specific claims that he has already exhausted, as
well as those that he is still attempting to exhaust in state court.
Accordingly, Petitioner is hereby ORDERED a second time to show cause why
the motion to stay (ECF No. 2) should be granted. A response to this Order shall include
a list of the claims Petitioner has a lready exhausted, as well as a list of the claims that
Petitioner still needs to exhaust. A response to this Order, or a notice to withdraw the
motion to stay, is due within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order. Petitioner is
forewarned that failure to follow this Order may result in sanctions, including the
dismissal of the petition without prejudice. Local Rule 110.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 12, 2017
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?