Harris v. Davis, 1:16-cv-01572-DAD. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181206b58
Visitors: 24
Filed: Dec. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2018
Summary: STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING CLAIM EXHAUSTION AND SCHEDULING AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE RE RHINES STAY (Doc. No. 62) DALE A. DROZD , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is the parties' joint statement filed November 29, 2018 regarding the exhaustion status of the 45 claims, including sub-claims, alleged in the 335-page petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this proceeding on March 30, 2018. The parties agree that certain claims are fully or partially unexhausted and
Summary: STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING CLAIM EXHAUSTION AND SCHEDULING AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE RE RHINES STAY (Doc. No. 62) DALE A. DROZD , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is the parties' joint statement filed November 29, 2018 regarding the exhaustion status of the 45 claims, including sub-claims, alleged in the 335-page petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this proceeding on March 30, 2018. The parties agree that certain claims are fully or partially unexhausted and t..
More
STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING CLAIM EXHAUSTION AND SCHEDULING AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE RE RHINES STAY
(Doc. No. 62)
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is the parties' joint statement filed November 29, 2018 regarding the exhaustion status of the 45 claims, including sub-claims, alleged in the 335-page petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this proceeding on March 30, 2018.
The parties agree that certain claims are fully or partially unexhausted and that the current scheduling order should be modified to allow respondent to show cause why the court should not order stay and abeyance under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (Doc. No. 62 at 1-3) (citing the Fresno Division's Guide to Case Management and Budgeting in Capital Habeas Cases.)
Accordingly, pursuant to the parties' agreement and good cause having been shown:
1. All claims and sub-claims in the petition are deemed exhausted except that claims and sub-claims 8, 10, 11.C.12, 11.C.14, 12, 13, 14, 27, 32, 34.D.5 through 34.D.7, 34.D.9, 36, 43, and 44 are found to be unexhausted.
2. The currently scheduled March 30, 2019 deadline for the filing of respondent's answer is vacated and will be re-set by the court upon completion of exhaustion proceedings.
3. Respondent is directed to show cause why this matter should not be stayed pursuant to Rhines and shall file his response not later than sixty (60) days following the filed date of this order, or waive any entitlement to show cause.
4. Petitioner shall file his reply to that response not later than thirty (30) days following the filed date of the response.
5. Respondent shall file his sur-reply, if any, not later than thirty (30) days following the filed date of the reply.
6. The matter shall be deemed submitted following completion of the briefing described above. The parties will be notified if a hearing on the issue of the appropriateness of a stay under Rhines is deemed necessary by the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
