Romero

I. INTRODUCTION

11 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison and proceeding pro se, 12 filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which 13 he raised a single claim of insufficient evidence to support his carjacking conviction. Dkt. 1. 14 Thereafter, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. Dkt. 11. Respondent then filed an answer. 15 Dkt. 16. 16 On August 29, 2022, in lieu of filing a traverse, petitioner filed a motion for a stay and 17 abeyance pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), in order for him to return to state 18 court and exhaust two new claims based on recent statutory changes to state sentencing law. Dkt. 19 20. He states that these claims “have come to the attention of petitioner recently after being 20 provided records and transcripts of [his] state matter.” Id. at 1. Respondent has opposed the 21 motion to stay and argues that the stay procedure does not apply in this case, as the petition is fully exhausted. Dkt. 21 at 2. Rather, respondent argues that the stay procedure pursuant to Kelly v. 23 Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002) applies instead. Id. …