Rios v. Frauenheim
This text of Rios v. Frauenheim (Rios v. Frauenheim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ULYSSES ALEXANDER RIOS, 11 Case No. 15-01357 BLF (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. STAY; GRANTING THIRD 13 EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE 14 SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,
15 Respondent. (Docket No. 51) 16
17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction out of Santa Clara County. 20 Respondent filed an answer on June 15, 2020. Dkt. No. 44. After being granted a second 21 extension of time, Petitioner’s traverse was due by February 11, 2021. Dkt. No. 50. On 22 February 8, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for a motion for stay and abeyance under 23 “Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2008),” stating that lack of access to the law library 24 due to the pandemic makes it impossible for him to file a proper traverse. Dkt. No. 51. 25 The motion for an indefinite stay is DENIED. First of all, a stay under Rhines is 26 appropriate when a petitioner has shown good cause to return to state courts to exhaust 27 potentially meritorious claims that were unexhausted at the time a federal habeas action 1 || Petitioner faces. Accordingly, a stay under Rhines is not applicable. Furthermore, the 2 || Court recognizes that despite challenges presented by the pandemic, other actions filed by 3 || prisoners in pro se have been steadily proceeding. Accordingly, the motion for an 4 || indefinite stay until the pandemic passes is DENEID. 5 In the interest of justice, Petitioner shall be granted a third extension of time to file a 6 || traverse. Petitioner shall file a traverse no later than fifty-six (56) days from the date 7 || this order is filed. Petitioner may continue to file requests for additional time as needed, 8 || but he must continue to make a good faith effort to prosecute this action in a diligent 9 || manner. 10 This order terminates Docket No. 51. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED 12 E 13 || Dated: February 19, 2021 _ fob Lelrys ramntn/ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge
Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order Denying Stay; Granting 3rd EOT to file Trav 25 || PAPRO-SE\BLF\HC.15\01357Rios 3rd.eot-trav.docx 26 27
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rios v. Frauenheim, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rios-v-frauenheim-cand-2021.