Atchley

(HC) Fair v. Atchley

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 29, 20212:20-cv-01107California348 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH D. FAIR, JR., No. 2:20-cv-1107 JAM DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER MATTHEW ATCHLEY, Warden, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition, as originally filed, presents three grounds for relief. On May 19, 2021, respondent moved to dismiss the petition, asserting that grounds one and two are unexhausted. On June 21, 2021, petitioner filed a motion to stay and abey his federal habeas petition pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (1995) and Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) in order to exhaust state court remedies on grounds one and two. (ECF No. 16.) Due to the overwhelming demands on the court’s docket, this motion cannot be adjudicated immediately. However, petitioner is not required to await resolution of the pending motion before returning to state court to properly exhaust his state court remedies.…

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.