Hixton

(HC) Walker v. Hixton

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 20252:23-cv-02711California545 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TYRONE WALKER, No. 2:23-cv-2711-DC-SCR-P Petitioner, v. ORDER A. HIXTON, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer in this habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order dated August 15, 2024, petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance was granted, in part, and he was directed to file a fully exhausted second amended § 2254 petition within 30 days. ECF No. 15. A review of the docket indicates that petitioner filed a second amended § 2254 petition on September 23, 2024. Although the form petition itself lists two claims for relief, petitioner’s memorandum in support of the petition is limited to his fully exhausted due process challenge to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial. As a result, the court finds that petitioner has substantially complied with the court’s August 15, 2024 order by filing a second amended § 2254 which the court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.