ORDER

GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.

This pro se habeas petition comes before the Court on petitioner's motion to stay proceedings pending appeal (ECF No. 46) and a motion to stay and abey pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (ECF No. 48).

Petitioner's motion to stay pending appeal is moot because petitioner's appeal has been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (See ECF Nos. 47 & 49). The motion to stay pending appeal will therefore be denied as moot.

Turning to petitioner's motion to stay and abey, stay and abeyance is a procedure that allows a petitioner to stay a federal habeas petition to exhaust any unexhausted claims in state court. There are no unexhausted claims in the operative petition in this case. While petitioner has sought leave to amend his petition to include unexhausted claims, the Court has denied him leave to do so, initially and on reconsideration. Nothing in the motion to stay persuades the Court that it should reconsider its prior decisions in this respect. As there are no claims that are or will be before the Court that are unexhausted, there is no reason for a stay, and the motion to stay and abey will therefore be denied.

As to petitioner's contention that his proposed amended petition and ongoing state court petition allege actual innocence, which could excuse the procedural default of some of his claims, this also does not justify entry of a stay. Petitioner could have raised actual innocence in response to the procedural default argument in the motion to dismiss but failed to do so. (See ECF No. 19). Petitioner's belated assertion of actual innocence is not a basis for further delaying these proceedings.

In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion to stay (ECF No. 46) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to stay and abey (ECF No. 48) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.