Filed: Jun. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER TO FILE A RESPONSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 31 THELTON E. HENDERSON , District Judge . I Petitioner, Tyrone Reed, proceeds with a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The Court previously granted Respondent's motion to dismiss because Petitioner had presented one exhausted claim and four unexhausted claims. After Petitioner's motion for a stay was denied, Petitioner elected to strike his unexhausted claims and proceed solely with the exhausted claim. Responden
Summary: ORDER TO FILE A RESPONSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 31 THELTON E. HENDERSON , District Judge . I Petitioner, Tyrone Reed, proceeds with a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The Court previously granted Respondent's motion to dismiss because Petitioner had presented one exhausted claim and four unexhausted claims. After Petitioner's motion for a stay was denied, Petitioner elected to strike his unexhausted claims and proceed solely with the exhausted claim. Respondent..
More
ORDER TO FILE A RESPONSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 31
THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.
I
Petitioner, Tyrone Reed, proceeds with a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court previously granted Respondent's motion to dismiss because Petitioner had presented one exhausted claim and four unexhausted claims. After Petitioner's motion for a stay was denied, Petitioner elected to strike his unexhausted claims and proceed solely with the exhausted claim. Respondent filed an answer, Petitioner filed a traverse, and this case was fully briefed.
Petitioner has now filed an amended petition containing three additional claims, though not the sole claim that the petition currently continues with, and a notice that the California Supreme Court recently denied a habeas petition. It appears that Petitioner seeks to amend the petition to add the newly exhausted claims. However, Petitioner has not filed a motion to amend, his amended petition does not contain the original claim in the petition, and it is not clear what claims were presented to the California Supreme Court.
If Petitioner wishes to amend the petition to add these claims he must file a motion to amend, an amended petition containing all the claims he wishes to proceed with, and he must demonstrate that the new claims were exhausted.1 Petitioner should provide a copy of the petition submitted to the California Supreme Court. Petitioner must submit these filings within twenty-eight days from service of this order. Respondent may file a response within twenty-eight days of Petitioner's filing concerning how the Court should proceed.
II
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,
1. If Petitioner wishes to amend the petition, within twenty-eight days he must file a motion to amend, an amended petition containing all the claims he wishes to proceed with, and he must demonstrate that the new claims were exhausted, preferably by providing a copy of the petition submitted to the California Supreme Court. Respondent may file a response within twenty-eight days of Petitioner's filing. Petitioner's failure to file a response within twenty-eight days of this order will result in the case proceeding only on the sole claim of the petition.
2. Petitioner's motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 28, 31) are DENIED as meritless.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
