Bodden v. Gentry

Opinion

8 * * *

9 KAREN BODDEN, Case No. 2:14-cv-01968-RFB-NJK

10 Petitioner, ORDER v. 11 JO GENTRY, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 Karen Bodden’s § 2254 habeas petition is before the court on her motion to stay 15 case (ECF No. 96). Bodden explains that she filed a DNA petition in state court in July 16 2020 and in January 2021 the state district court set a hearing on the petition for May 6, 17 2021 (exhibits A and B to motion to stay). Bodden states that the petition seeks new DNA 18 testing that was not available when the state conducted DNA testing in 2007. She avers 19 that the results of the new test could form the basis of an actual innocence claim. See 20 Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 314-317 (1995). Respondents have indicated that they do 21 not oppose a stay (ECF No. 96). Therefore, the motion is granted. 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to stay case (ECF No. 96) 23 is GRANTED. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion for extension of time to 25 respond to motion to stay (ECF No. 98) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED pending final resolution of 27 petitioner’s state-court proceedings. ' IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the grant of a stay is conditioned upon petitioner 2 returning to federal court with a motion to reopen the case within 45 days of the issuance of the remittitur by the highest state court at the conclusion of petitioner's state-court ‘ proceedings. ° IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this 6 action, until such time as the court grants a motion to reopen the matter. 8 10 DATED: 7 April 2021. 1 12 UNITED STAFES*BtS TRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28