UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 14, 2010
WILLIAM ROBERT STANKEWITZ, PETITIONER,
D. K. SISTO, WARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE STAY SHOULD NOT BE LIFTED AND THE PETITION ADJUDICATED ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant petition on September 7, 2006. (Doc. 1). On July 24, 2008, the Court granted Petitioner a stay of proceedings to permit Petitioner to exhaust his claims in state court. (Doc. 19). In that order, the Court required Petitioner to file regular status reports regarding his exhaustion efforts. Following the filing of status reports on August 15, 2008 and October 3, 2008, Petitioner filed a status report on November 13, 2008 indicating that the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, had denied his state habeas petition on October 6, 2008. (Doc. 24). In that status report, Petitioner also requested an extension of time of sixty days in which to prepare his "opposition to the appellate denial" of his state petition. (Id.). On November 25, 2008, the Court issued an informational order explaining to Petitioner that he must exhaust his claims in the California Supreme Court and that he must continue to file regular status reports or the stay would be lifted. (Doc. 25). In the fourteen months since the Court's last order, Petitioner has not responded in any fashion.
Accordingly, Petitioner is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order why the stay in effect in this case should not be lifted and why adjudication of the original petition should not proceed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.