Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CISNE v. MOONEY, 14-129. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20150109953 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, District Judge. AND NOW, this 8 th day of January, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner's "Motion for Stay and Abeyance," the response thereto, Respondents' "Motion for Clarification of Proposed Order," and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, and there being no objections to the Report and Recommendation 1 , it is hereby ORDERED that:
More

ORDER

MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2015, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner's "Motion for Stay and Abeyance," the response thereto, Respondents' "Motion for Clarification of Proposed Order," and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, and there being no objections to the Report and Recommendation1, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. Petitioner's "Motion for Stay and Abeyance" (doc. no. 2) is GRANTED; 3. Respondents' "Motion for Clarification of Proposed Order" (doc. no. 12) is GRANTED; 4. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. no. 1) is STAYED and HELD IN ABEYANCE while Petitioner's PCRA petition/appeal is pending in Pennsylvania courts; and 5. Petitioner must notify this Court of his intent to proceed with his federal habeas Petition within thirty (30) days of the date his PCRA petition/appeal is no longer pending to avoid dismissal of this Petition.

FootNotes


1. Although Respondents have moved for me to clarify Judge Lloret's proposed order so as to "explicitly condition the stay on the prisoner's pursuing state court remedies within a brief interval, normally 30 days, after the stay is entered and returning to federal court within a similarly brief interval, normally 30 days after state court exhaustion is completed," Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005) (quoting Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F.3d 374, 381 (2d Cir. 2001)), they have not otherwise objected to the Report and Recommendation.
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