CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case 2:20-cv-04461-MCS (GJS) Date January 28, 2025 No. Title Tyshaun Andrew Jackson v. Warren L. Montgomery

Present: Hon. Gail J. Standish, United States Magistrate Judge N. Estrada N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Respondent: None present None present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Why Rhines Stay Should Not Be Vacated

On June 18, 2020, at Petitioner’s request, the Court issued an Order granting a Rhines1 stay in this case [Dkt. 7, “Stay Order”]. The Stay Order provided that, “[w]ithin 45 days of this Order and every 60 days thereafter, Petitioner must file a brief Status Report, in which he advises the Court of the status of his state habeas proceeding(s).” The Stay Order also provided that “Petitioner is cautioned that the failure to comply with these requirements may result in the Court ordering the stay to be vacated nunc pro tunc.”

It is now 125 days since Petitioner – who is represented by counsel – filed his last Status Report. Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Rhines stay in this case should not be vacated nunc pro tunc. By no later than February 18, 2025, Petitioner shall file a Response to this Order To Show Cause explaining why the Rhines stay should continue. Alternatively, by that same February 18, 2025 deadline, Petitioner simply may file the required Status Report. The failure to comply will result in the vacating of the Rhines stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 See Rhines v. Weber,

(2005).