Kenneth Paul Zimmerman v. Jack Warner

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-06050
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 KENNETH PAUL ZIMMERMAN, 8 CASE NO. 3:25-CV-6050-RAJ-DWC Petitioner, v. 9 ORDER DIRECTING ANSWER JACK WARNER, 10 Respondent. 11 12 On November 19, 2025, Petitioner Kenneth Paul Zimmerman initiated this case under 28 13 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay and Abey. Dkt. 7. The Court directed the 14 Petition be served and directed Respondent to file a response to the Motion to Stay. Dkt. 13. The 15 Court stated it would direct Respondent to later file an answer to the Petition, if appropriate. Id. 16 On December 24, 2025, Respondent filed a response to the Motion to Stay. Dkt. 17. Respondent 17 asserts the Motion to Stay should be denied because the Petition is untimely and Petitioner is 18 procedurally barred from exhausting any unexhausted claims. Id. 19 “District courts do ordinarily have authority to issue stays, . . . where such a stay would 20 be a proper exercise of discretion.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005) (internal citation 21 omitted). A stay and abeyance in federal habeas cases, however, “should be available only in 22 limited circumstances.” Id. at 277. A stay may be granted if: (1) the petitioner has “good cause” 23 for the failure to exhaust his grounds in state court; (2) the unexhausted claims are potentially 24 1 meritorious; and (3) there is no indication the petitioner intentionally engaged in dilatory 2 litigation tactics. Id. at 278; see Riner v. Crawford, 415 F.Supp.2d 1207, 1210 (D. Nev. 2006). 3 The Court has considered the record and finds an answer to the Petition, with a complete 4 record, is necessary before the Court rules on the Motion to Stay. Respondent asserts the Petition

5 is timed-barred and any unexhausted claims are procedurally defaulted. If accurate, Petitioner’s 6 Petition suffers from procedural deficiencies and any unexhausted claims are not meritorious. 7 Without the state court records, this Court cannot determine if a stay is appropriate. For these 8 reasons, the Court directs Respondent to file an answer to the Petition. 9 Therefore, on or before February 20, 2026, Respondent shall file and serve an answer in 10 accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District 11 Courts. As part of such answer, respondent(s) shall state whether petitioner has exhausted 12 available state remedies and whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary. Respondent(s) shall 13 not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first showing cause as to why an 14 answer is inadequate. Respondent(s) shall file the answer with the Clerk of the Court and serve a

15 copy of the answer on petitioner. 16 The answer will be treated in accordance with LCR 7. Accordingly, on the face of the 17 answer, Respondent shall note it for consideration no earlier than 28 days after filing. Petitioner 18 may file and serve a response not later than 21 days after the filing date of the response, and 19 Respondent may file and serve a reply not later than 28 days after the filing date of the motion. 20 The Clerk’s Office is directed to re-note the Motion to Stay (Dkt. 7) for March 20, 2026. 21 Dated this 14th day of January, 2026. 22 A 23 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 24