Caril v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01735
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 LEON CARIL II, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01735-RSM-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER EXTENDING STAY AND 12 DIRECTING STATUS REPORTS ROBERT JACKSON, 13 Respondent. 14

15 This matter is before the Court on referral from the District Court and on Petitioner Leon 16 Caril II’s Motion to continue the stay of these proceedings and Respondent’s Status Report. 17 Dkts. 32, 33. 18 On May 15, 2024, the Court entered an Order staying this case while Petitioner exhausts 19 his state court remedies and directing Petitioner to file a status report every 90 days informing 20 the Court of the status of his state court proceedings. Dkt. 25. On July 23, 2024, Petitioner filed a 21 Motion for an extension of time, construed by the Court as a Motion to continue the stay of these 22 § 2254 proceedings. Dkt. 27. 23 24 1 By Order dated August 15, 2024, the Court granted the Motion and directed that the case 2 remain stayed. Dkt. 28. In that Order, the Court also directed Respondent to file a report every 3 90 days informing the Court of the status of Petitioner’s state court proceedings. Id. Finally, the 4 Court directed that, if the state court dismisses or resolves Petitioner’s state court proceedings,

5 Petitioner or Respondent shall inform the Court and file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days 6 of the state court taking such action. Id. 7 On October 29, 2024, Petitioner filed another Motion for an extension of time, again 8 construed by the Court as a Motion to continue the stay of these § 2254 proceedings. Dkt. 29. 9 Also, pursuant to the Court’s August 15, 2024, Order, Respondent filed a status report asserting 10 that a continuation of the stay is appropriate because Petitioner is still exhausting his state court 11 remedies. Dkt. 30. As a result, on November 13, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting the 12 Motion to continue the stay, and again directed Respondent to file a status report every 90 days. 13 Dkt. 31. 14 As the Court previously set forth, this Court may stay consideration of a habeas petition

15 to allow a petitioner to exhaust his remedies in state court before returning to federal court. See 16 Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 69, 274–79 (2005). In the instant Motion, Petitioner again indicates 17 that his proceedings remain pending in state court and requests that the Court continue the stay of 18 these habeas proceedings until the completion of those state court proceedings. Dkt. 32. 19 Respondent’s status report again asserts that a continuation of the stay is appropriate because 20 Petitioner is still exhausting his state court remedies. Dkt. 33. 21 Upon review of the Motion and Respondent’s status report, the Court finds good cause to 22 grant Petitioner’s Motion. Thus, the Motion to continue the stay (Dkt. 32) is GRANTED and the 23 case shall remain STAYED.

24 1 FURTHER, Respondent is directed to continue to FILE a report every 90 days 2 informing the Court of the status of Petitioner’s state court proceedings. The next status report is 3 due on or before April 28, 2025. Based on this directive to Respondent regarding status 4 reports, there is no need for Petitioner to file additional motions for extension of time.

5 Rather, if the state court dismisses or resolves Petitioner’s state court proceedings, Petitioner or 6 Respondent is directed to INFORM the Court and FILE a motion to lift the stay within 30 days 7 of the state court taking such action. Respondent shall FILE its answer within 45 days after 8 the stay is lifted. 9 Dated this 13th day of February, 2025. 10 A 11 12 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24