Lenix v. Uribe, Jr.
Filing
23
ORDER DISREGARDING Petitioner's 21 Motion to Reinstate Stay; ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 22 Motion to Clarify, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/1/2011. (Marrujo, C)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
ARTHUR LOURDES LENIX,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)
1:09-cv-01683-AWI-JLT HC
ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO REINSTATE STAY (Doc. 21)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO CLARIFY (Doc. 22)
15
16
17
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner originally filed his federal petition on September 23, 2009. (Doc. 1). On March
19
18, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the claims contained in the original
20
petition. (Doc. 6). Shortly thereafter, on April 1, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant motion for a stay
21
of proceedings. (Doc. 9). On May 3, 2010, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for stay of
22
proceedings and required Petitioner to file regular status reports. (Doc. 12). On May 6, 2010,
23
Petitioner, for reasons unknown, filed a second motion for stay of proceedings, i.e., after the Court
24
had already granted his earlier requested stay. (Doc. 13). On March 21, 2011, after a clerical
25
review of pending motions revealed that this Court had never ruled on the apparently redundant
26
motion of May 6, 2010, the Court denied the motion as moot in light of the Court’s previous order
27
granting a stay. (Doc. 20). On April 5, 2011, Petitioner filed the instant motion to reinstate the stay
28
as well as a motion to clarify the Court’s ruling. (Docs. 21 & 22).
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
1
1
As to Petitioner’s motion to re-instate the stay, the motion is unnecessary and redundant: the
2
Court has never rescinded the stay; it only denied the May 6, 2010 motion for stay because the Court
3
had already granted Petitioner a stay. Accordingly, the case has remained administratively closed
4
and in “stay” status since Petitioner’s first stay request was granted on May 3, 2006. Because the
5
stay has never been lifted, it cannot be re-instated. That being the case, the Court will disregard
6
Petitioner’s motion to re-instate the stay.
7
Regarding Petitioner’s motion for clarification, the Court fully explains its rulings in each
8
motion. In the order of March 21, 2011, the Court expressly indicated that it was denying the stay
9
request of May 6, 2011, “in light of” the Court’s prior ruling granting a stay. Accordingly,
10
Petitioner’s motion for clarification is denied.
11
ORDER
12
For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
13
1.
14
15
Petitioner’s motion to re-instate the stay of proceedings (Doc. 21) is
DISREGARDED; and,
2.
Petitioner’s motion for clarification (Doc. 22), is DENIED.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated: June 1, 2011
9j7khi
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
