ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXHAUST STATE COURT REMEDIES (DOC. 27)

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. Pending before the Court is the Petitioner's motion for permission to exhaust new issues and inquiry regarding the status of the case, which was filed on March 13, 2014.

Petitioner is serving a sentence of twenty-one years to life for sexual offenses. In the petition filed on September 29, 2011, Petitioner challenges the introduction of a taped admission or confession as a violation of his privilege against self-incrimination; he further alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on two counts of lewd conduct. In the answer filed on December 1, 2011, Respondent answers Petitioner's contentions on the merits. Petitioner filed a traverse on January 3, 2012, in which he addressed the issues that he had raised in the petition. The case has thus been ready for decision, but the precise time the Court will decide the case is uncertain because cases that have been ready for an even longer period must first be addressed.

On March 13, 2014, Petitioner filed the motion before the Court. In the motion, Petitioner states that he seeks leave to raise "other new issues together with the issues that Petitioner over added in Petitioner's appeal, without exhausting them in the lower courts." (Pet., doc. 1, p. 1:16-19.) However, Petitioner does not specify the new issues. The precise relief that Petitioner requests is unclear.

Insofar as Petitioner is seeking permission to resort to state court remedies or otherwise to exhaust state court remedies, Petitioner's motion seeks relief that the Court is not authorized to give because this Court does not control Petitioner's exhaustion of state court remedies.

It is possible that Petitioner is seeking a stay of the instant proceedings so that Petitioner may exhaust state court remedies and then attempt to amend the petition in this proceeding to add those claims. However, Petitioner has not asked for a stay and has not specified the claims he seeks to raise, explained what he has done to exhaust state court remedies as to those claims, or offered his reasons for not having raised them sooner. It thus is not possible or productive to ask for input from the Respondent with respect to this motion. The Court exercises its discretion to deny the motion without seeking opposition. The denial will be without prejudice to Petitioner's bringing a motion for a stay of the proceedings to permit exhaustion of specific claims or for amendment of the petition to add specific exhausted claims.

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion is DENIED as uncertain and without prejudice to Petitioner's filing a motion for a stay, for leave to amend the petition, or other appropriate motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.