Carranza v. Yates
ORDER LIFTING STAY AND REOPENING ACTION; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 3/21/2011. (Attachments: # 1 CertServ)(awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2011)
Carranza v. Yates
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ISMAEL TOVAR CARRANZA, Petitioner, v. JAMES A. YATES, warden, Respondent. /
No. C 07-1114 MHP (pr) ORDER LIFTING STAY AND REOPENING ACTION
The petition for writ of habeas corpus in this action asserted a single claim, i.e., that petitioner's constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. After the petition was fully briefed, petitioner filed a motion to amend to add four new claims and a motion to stay the action so he could exhaust state court remedies for those four new claims. The court granted the motions, stayed the action and directed the clerk to administratively close the action while petitioner exhausted state court remedies. The court also explained that nothing further would take place until petitioner exhausted and, within thirty days of doing so, moved to reopen this action, lift the court's stay and proceed with consideration of his habeas petition. Petitioner has filed a motion to reopen the action, lift the stay and proceed with consideration of only his speedy trial claim. Petitioner stated in his motion that he had received bad information from another inmate about the additional claims he attempted to exhaust and had since realized that the only claim he wanted to proceed with was the speedy trial claim he had asserted in his original petition. Respondent has not opposed the motion.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Upon due consideration, petitioner's motion to reopen the action, lift the stay and proceed with consideration of his petition's speedy trial claim is GRANTED. (Docket # 21.) The stay is lifted and the clerk will reopen the action. All claims except the speedy trial claim are now dismissed, as plaintiff has stated a desire not to have those claims considered. When the court stayed the action, the parties already had briefed the speedy trial claim, so it does not appear necessary to set a briefing schedule. The petition remains under submission and will be decided in due course. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 21 2011 Marilyn Hall Patel United States District 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?