Barnes v. Carter

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 23, 2024
Docket3:22-cv-00882
StatusUnknown

This text of Barnes v. Carter (Barnes v. Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barnes v. Carter, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, Case No. 22-cv-00882-WHO (PR)

Petitioner, 8 ORDER STAYING ACTION v. 9

10 PATRICK COVELLO, Respondent. 11

12 13 Petitioner Antoine Deshawn Barnes’s motion to stay habeas proceedings so that he 14 can exhaust claims in state court is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 14 at 1.) This federal habeas 15 action is STAYED under Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). Nothing further will 16 take place in this suit until the Court decides further action is appropriate, or until Barnes 17 meets the conditions for dissolving the stay. 18 After obtaining a decision from the state supreme court on his unexhausted claims, 19 Barnes must file in this Court a motion to dissolve the stay and to reopen federal habeas 20 proceedings. The motion must have the words MOTION TO REOPEN written on the first 21 page. It must also contain an amended petition on this Court’s form. The amended 22 petition must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (22-00882 WHO 23 (PR)) and the words THIRD AMENDED PETITION must be written on the first page. 24 Because an amended petition completely replaces the previous petitions, Barnes must 25 include in his amended petition all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 26 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from a prior 27 petition by reference. Any unexhausted claims will be summarily dismissed. 1 Barnes is reminded that because he entered into a plea agreement the only 2 || challenges left open to him on federal habeas corpus review concern (1) the voluntary and 3 || intelligent character of the plea and (ii) the adequacy of the advice of counsel. Womack v. 4 || Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56- 5 || 57 (1985)). 6 The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of this 7 || action. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: January 23, 2024 . \f 1 oe VN 0 LIAM H. ORRICK 11 United States District Judge a 12

© 15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hill v. Lockhart
474 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Rhines v. Weber
544 U.S. 269 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Womack v. Del Papa
497 F.3d 998 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Barnes v. Carter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-carter-cand-2024.