Nagy v. Davey et al
Filing
37
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/16/2015 DIRECTING the Clerk to send petitioner a courtesy copy of his original petition for writ of habeas corpus. IT IS RECOMMEDED that petitioner's 35 m otion to re-instate the stay in this action be denied; and petitioner's 36 motion for an extension of time to file a traverse be GRANTED, and petitioner be directed to file a traverse in support of his exhausted claims within 60 days of an order adopting these findings and recommendations. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DANIEL NAGY,
12
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-2948 WBS DAD P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER AND
D. DAVEY, et al.,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Respondents.
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s second motion to
19
re-instate the stay of this action.
20
On July 29, 2015, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending
21
that petitioner’s first motion to re-instate the stay of this action be denied because petitioner had
22
unreasonably delayed in his pursuit of exhausting his unexhausted claims in state court, and it
23
would be an abuse of discretion to further stay these proceedings. (Doc. No. 32) On September
24
2, 2015, the assigned district judge adopted those findings and recommendations in full and
25
ordered petitioner to file a traverse, if any, in support of his exhausted claims within thirty days.
26
(Doc. No. 34)
27
28
On September 14, 2015, petitioner filed a second motion to re-instate the stay of this
action. He explains that he recently inquired about the status of his petition for writ of habeas
1
1
corpus filed in the San Joaquin Superior Court and received a response from the clerk of that
2
court indicating that his petition for writ of habeas corpus had been denied back on October 29,
3
2014. Petitioner also has informed this court that the clerk of the San Joaquin Superior Court had
4
his correct address but did not have his correct CDC number. (Doc. No. 35)
5
Notwithstanding the claimed confusion regarding petitioner’s CDC number in the San
6
Joaquin Superior Court, the undersigned finds once again that petitioner has unreasonably
7
delayed in his efforts to exhaust his unexhausted claims in state court. See Kelly v. Small, 315
8
F.3d 1063, 1071 (9th Cir. 2003) (indicating reasonable time limits would allow petitioner 30 days
9
to file a petition in state court and 30 days to return to federal court after final rejection of claims
10
by state court), overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1148-49 (9th
11
Cir. 2007). This court originally stayed this federal habeas action back in 2012 to allow petitioner
12
the opportunity to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Until recently, petitioner unduly delayed in
13
inquiring and learning about the status of his exhaustion petition filed in the San Joaquin Superior
14
Court. Moreover, although this federal habeas action has been stayed for almost three years,
15
petitioner has yet to file an exhaustion petition with the California Supreme Court. Again, the
16
undersigned concludes that it would be an abuse of this court’s discretion to further stay these
17
proceedings.
18
Accordingly, the court will recommend that petitioner’s second motion to re-instate the
19
stay of this action be denied and that this action proceed only on petitioner’s already exhausted
20
claims.1
21
1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Shortly after filing his second motion to re-instate the stay of this action, petitioner filed a
motion for an extension of time and a request for a copy of his original petition for writ of habeas
corpus. In his motion, petitioner requests that the court re-instate the stay of this action or grant
him an extension of time, presumably to file a traverse in this action. As noted above, the
undersigned will recommend that petitioner’s second motion to re-instate the stay of this action
be denied. In addition, however, the court will recommend that petitioner be granted sixty days
from the date of any order adopting these findings and recommendations to file a traverse with
this court. Finally, the court will direct the Clerk of the Court to provide petitioner with a
courtesy copy of his original petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is reminded that his
original petition, filed November 7, 2011, was deemed amended by the deletion of Grounds A, E,
F, G, and H, all of which are unexhausted. (Doc. No. 23.) No further courtesy copies will be
provided to petitioner in the future.
2
1
CONCLUSION
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a courtesy copy of his original
4
petition for writ of habeas corpus.
5
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
6
1. Petitioner’s motion to re-instate the stay of this action (Doc. No. 35) be denied; and
7
2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a traverse (Doc. No. 36) be granted,
8
and petitioner be directed to file a traverse in support of his exhausted claims within sixty days of
9
any order adopting these findings and recommendations.
10
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
11
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
12
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
13
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
14
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
15
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
16
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
17
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
18
Dated: October 16, 2015
19
20
21
22
DAD:9
nagy2948.styd(2)
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?