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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE LAMAR VALE, No. 2:25-cv-0639 WBS CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JASON SCHULTZ, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2022 conviction. (ECF No. 1.) As noted 19 in the Court’s June 13, 2025 order, the instant petition is a mixed petition containing both 20 exhausted and unexhausted claims. (ECF No. 7.) On September 26, 2025, petitioner filed a 21 motion for stay and abeyance pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). 22 Respondent is directed to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to petitioner’s motion. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Respondent is directed to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to 25 petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance within thirty days from the date of this 26 order. 27 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.