Carr v. McDowell
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Doc. No. 24 at 2. 1 Petitioner notified the Court that on October 13, 2022, he mailed a request for 2 ruling to the California S
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se state prisoner's request for judicial notice of his First Amended Petition, which it treated as a motion to lift a previously imposed stay pending state court exhaustion. The court lifted the stay and directed the Clerk to reopen the case and file the amended petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to lift stay granted“Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court LIFTS the stay and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to reopen this case.” | agree with court The court previously stayed the action under Rhines v. Weber to allow the petitioner to exhaust state court remedies. The order recites that the California Supreme Court denied the petitioner's state court petition on November 22, 2022. Because the condition for the stay (exhaustion in state court) has been satisfied, lifting the stay is the procedurally correct action to allow the federal habeas petition to proceed. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies that the stay was imposed to allow for state court exhaustion and that the exhaustion has now occurred (denial by the California Supreme Court). The decision to lift the stay follows directly from the procedural posture and the cited authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL D. CARR, Case No. 21-cv-900-MMA (MSB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER LIFTING STAY 13 v. [Doc. No. 28] 14 NEIL MCDOWELL, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 On May 10, 2021, Petitioner Paul D. Carr, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed 20 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. No. 1 (the 21 “Petition”). The Court initially dismissed the Petition with leave to amend, see Doc. 22 No. 3, and thereafter granted Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, see Doc. 23 No. 8, and extended Petitioner’s deadline to file a First Amended Petition three times, see 24 Doc. Nos. 8, 11, 13. On August 8, 2022, the Court stayed this action pursuant to Rhines 25 v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), to allow Petitioner to exhaust his claims in state court. 26 See Doc. Nos. 22, 24. The Court directed Petitioner to file a status report every ninety 27 (90) days, as well as a motion to lift the stay within thirty (30) days of a final decision by 28 the California Supreme Court. Doc. No. 24 at 2. 1 Petitioner notified the Court that on October 13, 2022, he mailed a request for 2 ruling to the California Supreme Court, see Doc. No. 25, and on November 21, 2022, he 3 filed a notice of change of address, see Doc. No. 26. On December 14, 2022, Petitioner 4 submitted a supplemental document, noting that he inadvertently failed to sign and 5 submit a Page 16 to his First Amended Petition, see Doc. No. 27.1 6 Petitioner has now filed a request for judicial notice, asking the Court to confirm 7 its receipt of his First Amended Petition. See Doc. No. 28. The Court treats his request 8 as a motion to lift the stay. 9 According to the First Amended Petition, attached to Petitioner’s request, the 10 California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s state court petition on November 22, 2022. 11 Doc. No. 28 at 11. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court LIFTS the stay and 12 DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to reopen this case. Petitioner’s First Amended Petition 13 (Doc. No. 28), along with the supplemental document bearing Petitioner’s signature 14 (Doc. No. 27), will be filed as a separate entry on the docket. The Court DIRECTS the 15 Clerk of Court to send Petitioner a copy of his First Amended Petition as filed along with 16 a copy of this Order. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: March 16, 2023 19 _____________________________ 20 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff indicated in his supplemental filing that he mailed a First Amended Petition on December 8, 2022. See Doc. No. 27 at 2. The Court did not receive Petitioner’s First Amended Petition until March 28