Fox

(HC) Brooks v. Fox

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 6, 20192:19-cv-00879California894 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HAROLD B. BROOKS, No. 2:19-cv-00879 JAM GGH P Petitioner, v. ORDER R. FOX, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. The matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c). Petitioner has filed a motion to stay in order to exhaust state court remedies on all of his claims. ECF No. 28. Respondent has filed an opposition. ECF No. 29. For the following reasons, the motion to stay will be denied. On May 23, 2019, the undersigned dismissed petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus with leave to amend. ECF No. 24. The petition was dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases based on the court’s confusion on whether petitioner was alleging grounds contesting his 1976 conviction from the San Francisco County 26 …

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.