Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BRYANT v. FOULK, 2:13-cv-1750-MCE-GGH. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20141010691 Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge. On September 10, 2014, the Court ordered petitioner to, within 30 days, file a motion for stay and abeyance of his federal habeas petition pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 , 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (1995), cautioning petitioner that failure to do so would result in the undersigned recommending petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim be stricken. ECF No. 29. Petitioner filed a response to that order on September 19, 20
More

ORDER

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.

On September 10, 2014, the Court ordered petitioner to, within 30 days, file a motion for stay and abeyance of his federal habeas petition pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (1995), cautioning petitioner that failure to do so would result in the undersigned recommending petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim be stricken. ECF No. 29. Petitioner filed a response to that order on September 19, 2014. ECF No. 30. It is the undersigned's determination from petitioner's response that he desires to proceed without his unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claim.1 As such, the undersigned will proceed to evaluating the merits of petitioner's habeas petition and will issue findings and recommendations as soon as practicable.

FootNotes


1. Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer