Kendrick v. Najera et al

Filing 28

ORDER. It is therefore ordered that the Stipulation to Stay (ECF No. 27 ) is approved. It is further ordered that this action is stayed while Petitioner completes his pending state court action. It is further ordered that following the conclusio n of Petitioner's state court action, Petitioner must, within 30 days, make a motion to lift the stay of this action. It is further ordered that this action will be subject to dismissal if Petitioner does not make a timely motion to lift the stay, or if Petitioner otherwise fails to proceed with diligence during the stay. It is further ordered that The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this case. It is further ordered that Respondents' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26 ) is denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 5/8/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MALIK KENDRICK, Case No. 2:23-cv-00594-ART-MDC 4 5 6 Petitioner, ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION AND STAYING ACTION v. RONALD OLIVER, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 In this habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Malik Kendrick, who is 10 represented by appointed counsel, filed an amended habeas petition on 11 December 18, 2023. (ECF No. 14.) The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on 12 February 16/2024 (ECF No. 20), and then withdrew that motion (see ECF Nos. 13 24, 25) and filed a revised motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26, filed April 26, 2024). 14 Kendrick is scheduled to respond to the motion to dismiss by May 24, 2024. (See 15 ECF No. 25.) 16 On May 6, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation (ECF No. 27) requesting that 17 this action be stayed pending Kendrick’s exhaustion of claims in state court. The 18 parties represent that Kendrick filed a second post-conviction petition in state 19 court on March 18, 2024, and that an evidentiary hearing has been scheduled in 20 that case. (ECF No. 27 at 1–2.) The parties agree that, in light of the ongoing 21 proceedings in state court, this action should be stayed under Rhines v. Weber, 22 544 U.S. 269 (2005). The parties suggest—reasonably so—that staying this action 23 pending completion of the state court proceedings will serve the interests of 24 judicial economy, as the outcome of the state court proceedings could affect the 25 resolution of this case. (Id. at 2.) The parties agree that there is good cause for 26 the stay under Rhines. 27 28 The Court will approve the stipulation and will stay this action pending the conclusion of Kendrick’s state court action. 1 1 It is therefore ordered that the Stipulation to Stay (ECF No. 27) is approved. 2 It is further ordered that this action is stayed while Petitioner completes his 3 pending state court action. 4 It is further ordered that following the conclusion of Petitioner’s state court 5 action, Petitioner must, within 30 days, make a motion to lift the stay of this 6 action. 7 It is further ordered that this action will be subject to dismissal if Petitioner 8 does not make a timely motion to lift the stay, or if Petitioner otherwise fails to 9 proceed with diligence during the stay. 10 11 12 13 14 It is further ordered that The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this case. It is further ordered that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) is denied as moot. DATED THIS 8th day of May 2024. 15 16 17 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?