Torres v. Virga

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/17/14 ordering this action is stayed for 60 days from the date of this order. (See order for further details)(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN TORRES,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-1358 TLN DAD P
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER

TIM VIRGA, Warden, et al.,
Respondent.

16
17

By order dated May 20, 2014, this action was stayed for sixty days and petitioner was

18

directed to notify the court and opposing counsel of the status of several petitions for certiorari

19

pending before the United States Supreme Court in the event that the stay had not been lifted

20

before the period of the stay had expired. On July 14, 2014, petitioner filed the required status

21

report. By order dated August 13, 2014, the stay was extended for another sixty days and

22

petitioner’s counsel was directed to notify the court and opposing counsel of the current status of

23

the petition for certiorari filed in DeMola v. Cavazos, Acting Warden, Case No. 13-10288, prior

24

to the expiration of the stay. On October 6, 2014, petitioner’s counsel filed the required status

25

report, explaining that the state’s response to the DeMola petition for certiorari is currently due on

26

or before October 20, 2014. Good cause appearing, the court will grant an additional 60 day stay

27

of this action. However, the parties are advised that the court is reluctant to grant any further

28

stays of this action unless a compelling showing is made justifying further delay.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

2

1. This action is stayed for sixty days from the date of this order.

3

2. During the sixty day period of the stay, petitioner’s counsel shall keep the court

4

apprised of any legal developments that would justify a lifting of the stay. In addition, if the stay

5

has not been lifted before the sixty day period of the stay expires, petitioner’s counsel shall notify

6

the court and opposing counsel of the then-current status of the petition for certiorari filed in

7

DeMola v. Cavazos, Acting Warden, 13-10288.

8
9

3. After the stay is lifted, the parties shall file a proposed schedule for the filing of a
traverse and further briefing on the applicability of the decisions in Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S.

10

___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) and Bell v. Uribe, 729 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) to this case.

11

Dated: October 17, 2014

12
13
14
15

DAD:8
Torres1358.stay3

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2