Rueda-Denvers v. Breitenbach

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided August 18, 2025·No. 3:25-cv-00109·Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 OMAR RUEDA-DENVERS, Case No. 3:25-cv-00109-MMD-CLB

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 NETHANJAH BREITENBACH, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 Through his counsel, the Federal Public Defender (“FPD”), Omar Rueda-Denvers 12 asks the Court to stay his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 13 while he litigates his initial state post-conviction proceedings. (ECF No. 18 (“Motion”).) 14 The Court grants the Motion. 15 Rueda-Denvers mailed his federal petition to the Court in February 2025. (ECF 16 No. 6.) Thereafter he filed his first state post-conviction petition in March 2025. This Court 17 then appointed the FPD as his counsel in this case in April 2025. (ECF No. 5.) The FPD 18 now moves for a stay of this case pending the completion of Rueda-Denvers’ state post- 19 conviction proceedings. In Pace v. DiGuglielmo, the United States Supreme Court 20 suggested that a petitioner with a premature federal petition may file a “protective” petition 21 seeking to have the federal proceedings stayed until conclusion of the state proceedings. 22 544 U.S. 408, 416-17 (2005). Respondents, while noting that they do not waive any 23 arguments regarding potential defenses, do not oppose a stay under these 24 circumstances. (ECF No. 18 at 4.) Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion. 25 It is therefore ordered that the Motion for a Stay and Abeyance (ECF No. 18) is 26 granted. 27 It is further ordered that this action is stayed pending final resolution of Petitioner’s 28 state post-conviction habeas petition. 1 It is further ordered that the grant of a stay is conditioned upon Petitioner returning 2 || to federal court with a motion to reopen the case within 45 days of the issuance of the 3 || remittitur by the state appellate court at the conclusion of the state-court proceedings on 4 || the post-conviction habeas petition. 5 The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this action, until such time 6 || as the Court grants a motion to reopen the matter. 7 DATED THIS 18" Day of August 2025. 8

10 MIRANDAM.DU □□□□□ 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

Rueda-Denvers v. Breitenbach, (D. Nev. 2025).

Rueda-Denvers v. Breitenbach (Rueda-Denvers v. Breitenbach) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pace v. DiGuglielmo
544 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court, 2005)