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)

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