Mixon v. Williams

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7 * * *

8 ANTONIO LEE MIXON, Case No. 2:17-cv-02292-RFB-NJK

9 Petitioner, v. ORDER 10

11 BRIAN E. WILLIAMS,

12 Respondent.

13 14 On March 31, 2020, the Court entered an Order finding that Petitioner Mixon’s Amended 15 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 44) contains an unexhausted claim, Ground 5, and 16 gave Mixon the option of either abandoning the claim or moving for stay and abeyance to allow 17 him to exhaust the claim in the Nevada courts. ECF No. 53. Mixon filed a Motion for Stay and 18 Abeyance. ECF No. 54. In response, Respondents filed a Non-Opposition to Motion for Stay. ECF 19 No. 55. 20 This Court has the discretion to stay federal habeas proceedings and hold them in abeyance 21 while a petitioner pursues state court exhaustion. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). It 22 also has the inherent power to control its docket and the disposition of its cases with economy of 23 time and effort for both the Court and the parties. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th 24 Cir. 1992). Under the circumstances present here, the Court will exercise its discretion to grant a 25 stay. 26 27 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Stay and Abeyance (ECF 2 || No. 54) is GRANTED. This action is stayed pending exhaustion of Petitioner’s unexhausted 3 || claims. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the grant of a stay is conditioned upon Petitioner 5 || returning to this Court with a motion to reopen within 45 days of issuance of the remittitur by the 6 || Supreme Court of Nevada at the conclusion of the state court proceedings. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall administratively close this 8 || action, until such time as the Court grants a motion to reopen the matter. 9 DATED THIS 8" day of May, 2020. 10 11 comottSeer 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28