Cummings v. Perkins

W.D. Washington

Cummings v. Perkins

DecidedAugust 26, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-01314

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Cummings v. Perkins, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CLAYTON EVAN CUMMINGS, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-1314-JNW-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 STAY JEFFEREY PERKINS, et al., 13 Respondents. 14

15 This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas action has been referred to United States Magistrate 16 Judge Grady J. Leupold. Currently before the Court is Petitioner Clayton Evan Cummings’ 17 Motion requesting another stay of these federal habeas proceedings. Dkt. 33. 18 This action has already been stayed so that Petitioner may attempt to exhaust his state 19 court remedies as permitted by Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275–77 (2005), and the instant 20 Motion does not request a stay for this permissible purpose. See Dkt. 13 (Order Granting Stay). 21 Rather, Petitioner requests these proceedings be stayed during the pendency of an alleged 22 investigation into a criminal complaint ostensibly filed with the Federal Bureaus of Investigation 23 regarding Petitioner’s underlying state court prosecution. See Dkt. 30. 24 1 Because Petitioner’s request for an additional stay does not fall within the “limited 2 circumstances” for which stay-and-abeyance procedures are available in federal habeas cases, 3 Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277, Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. 33) is DENIED. 4

5 Dated this 26th day of August, 2025. 6 A 7 8 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CLAYTON EVAN CUMMINGS, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-1314-JNW-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 STAY JEFFEREY PERKINS, et al., 13 Respondents. 14

15 This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas action has been referred to United States Magistrate 16 Judge Grady J. Leupold. Currently before the Court is Petitioner Clayton Evan Cummings’ 17 Motion requesting another stay of these federal habeas proceedings. Dkt. 33. 18 This action has already been stayed so that Petitioner may attempt to exhaust his state 19 court remedies as permitted by Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275–77 (2005), and the instant 20 Motion does not request a stay for this permissible purpose. See Dkt. 13 (Order Granting Stay). 21 Rather, Petitioner requests these proceedings be stayed during the pendency of an alleged 22 investigation into a criminal complaint ostensibly filed with the Federal Bureaus of Investigation 23 regarding Petitioner’s underlying state court prosecution. See Dkt. 30. 24 1 Because Petitioner’s request for an additional stay does not fall within the “limited 2 circumstances” for which stay-and-abeyance procedures are available in federal habeas cases, 3 Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277, Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. 33) is DENIED. 4

5 Dated this 26th day of August, 2025. 6 A 7 8 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cummings v. Perkins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-perkins-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack