(HC) Reginald Tanubagijo v. Daniel Paramo

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/09/19 DISREGARDING 28 , 29 petitioners untimely objections and second amended § 2254 filed on October 3, 2019 as filed in violation of a court order. Petitioners first amended habeas c orpus application 27 containing a single exhausted challenge to the trial courts inquiry into juror misconduct is the pending operative pleading in the instant case. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively stay these proceedings in accor dance with this courts July 26, 2019 order. Petitioner is directed to file a Status Report with this court every 90 days concerning his efforts to exhaust a second claim for relief in the California Supreme Court challenging the trial courts jury instructions.Petitioner is further advised to file a Notice of Exhaustion within 30 days of any decision issued by the California Supreme Court on this claim for relief.(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REGINALD TANUBAGIJO,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:18-cv-02290-MCE-CKD

ORDER

DANIEL PARAMO,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a California inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this habeas

18

corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 26, 2019, the district court judge

19

adopted the Findings and Recommendations issued on March 13, 2019 and granted petitioner a

20

stay and abeyance pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1074 (9th Cir. 2002). ECF No. 26.

21

This same order directed petitioner to file a first amended § 2254 petition containing only his first

22

claim for relief which was properly exhausted in state court. ECF No. 26 at 2. In compliance

23

with this order, petitioner filed a first amended § 2254 petition on September 25, 2019. ECF No.

24

27. However, before the court could stay petitioner’s case to allow him to return to state court to

25

exhaust a second claim for relief, petitioner filed untimely objections to the March 13, 2019

26

Findings and Recommendations as well as a second amended § 2254 petition which contains a

27

second claim for relief that has not been properly exhausted in state court. ECF Nos. 28-29.

28

Petitioner’s most recent pleadings do not comply with this court’s July 26, 2019 order.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Petitioner’s untimely objections and second amended § 2254 filed on October 3, 2019

3

(ECF Nos. 28, 29) are disregarded as filed in violation of a court order.

4

2. Petitioner’s first amended habeas corpus application (ECF No. 27) containing a single

5

exhausted challenge to the trial court’s inquiry into juror misconduct is the pending

6

operative pleading in the instant case.

7
8
9

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively stay these proceedings in
accordance with this court’s July 26, 2019 order.
4. Petitioner is directed to file a Status Report with this court every 90 days concerning

10

his efforts to exhaust a second claim for relief in the California Supreme Court

11

challenging the trial court’s jury instructions.

12
13
14

5. Petitioner is further advised to file a Notice of Exhaustion within 30 days of any
decision issued by the California Supreme Court on this claim for relief.
Dated: October 9, 2019

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

12/tanu2290.stay.docx

23
24
25
26
27
28
2