Nolen v. Valenzuela
Filing
23
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 1/5/17 ORDERING that 20 Motion to Stay is DENIED as moot; respondent shall, within 30 days of the date of this order, address petitioner's first amended petition (ECF No. 22 ).(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JIMMY GARFIELD NOLEN,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:16-cv-0041 DB
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
E. VALENZUELA,
Respondent.
16
17
18
19
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.)
Petitioner filed his initial petition on December 22, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent filed
20
an answer on April 22, 2016. (ECF No. 18.) On May 13, 2016, petitioner filed a motion to stay
21
his petition and hold it in abeyance while he exhausts the unexhausted claims in state court. (ECF
22
No. 20.) Respondent never filed a response to this motion and the court has yet to rule on it. On
23
September 16, 2016, petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No.
24
22.) The claims in the amended petition are the same as in the original; however, in the amended
25
petition, petitioner indicates that all claims have been exhausted in state court at this time. (Id.)
26
Accordingly, at this point, the purpose of petitioner’s motion to stay is moot since there
27
are no longer unexhausted claims in state court, which would necessitate a stay. Therefore, IT IS
28
HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to stay is denied as moot. Furthermore,
1
1
respondent has not submitted any filings addressing petitioner’s first amended petition.
2
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent shall, within thirty days of the date of this
3
order, address petitioner’s first amended petition (ECF No. 22).
4
Dated: January 5, 2017
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
TIM-DLB:10
DB / ORDERS / ORDERS.PRISONER.HABEAS / nole0041.mts
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?