Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Antonio V. Villasenor v. Michael Martel

January 29, 2013

ANTONIO V. VILLASENOR, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL MARTEL, RESPONDENT.



ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 8, 2012, respondent moved to dismiss the petition on that ground that four of petitioner's nine claims were unexhausted. Dckt. No. 23. On April 12, 2012, petitioner requested the court stay this proceeding so he could return to state court to exhaust the four unexhausted claims. Dckt. No. 28 at 5. On May 4, 2012, petitioner filed a document entitled "Notice of Filing State Petition and Clarification of Prior Pleading." Dckt. No. 29. In this document, petitioner explains that he has filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Id. at 1.

A review of the California Courts' website shows that on May 7, 2012, petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on November 20, 2012. If this state petition contained all of petitioner's unexhausted claims, all the claims in his federal petition are now exhausted.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties show cause, in writing, on or before February 11, 2013, why respondent's motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 23, and petitioner's motion for a stay, Dckt. No. 28, should not be denied as moot.

20130129

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.