Schultz

Maurice Lamar Vale v. Jason Schultz

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 22, 20252:25-cv-00639California262 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MAURICE LAMAR VALE, No. 2:25-cv-0639 WBS CSK P Petitioner, v. ORDER JASON SCHULTZ, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2022 conviction. (ECF No. 1.) As noted in the Court’s June 13, 2025 order, the instant petition is a mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. (ECF No. 7.) On September 26, 2025, petitioner filed a motion for stay and abeyance pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). Respondent is directed to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to petitioner’s motion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Respondent is directed to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance within thirty days from the date of this order. 2. Petitioner’s reply, if…

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.