Matteson

(HC) Saechao v. Matteson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 29, 20232:23-cv-00909California2,026 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LAI FOU SAECHAO., No. 2:23-cv-00909 DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER AND GISELLE MATTESON, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and also requests a stay under the procedure of Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005) (“Rhines”). Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the reasons set forth below, petitioner fails to meet the requirements for a stay and abeyance under Rhines. Thus, the undersigned will recommend that petitioner’s amended motion to stay under the Rhines procedure be denied. Since petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violation of…

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.