Pfeiffer

(HC) Mayorga v. Pfeiffer

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 2, 20232:22-cv-01940California357 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIO MICHAEL MAYORGA, No. 2:22-cv-1940 WBS KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, 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. On April 3, 2023, petitioner was ordered to show cause why respondent’s motion to dismiss should not be granted. On April 24, 2023, petitioner filed a response, as well as a motion to stay and abey his federal habeas petition pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (1995), in order to exhaust state court remedies on claim five. (ECF No. 16.) Respondent is directed to file a response to the motion for stay within 30 days. Due to the overwhelming demands on the court’s docket, petitioner’s motion may not 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. In the…

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.