Maurice Lamar Vale v. Jason Schultz
Maurice Lamar Vale v. Jason Schultz
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE LAMAR VALE, No. 2:25-cv-0639 WBS CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JASON SCHULTZ, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2022 conviction. (ECF No. 1.) As noted 19 in the Court’s June 13, 2025 order, the instant petition is a mixed petition containing both 20 exhausted and unexhausted claims. (ECF No. 7.) On September 26, 2025, petitioner filed a 21 motion for stay and abeyance pursuant to Rhines v. Weber,
544 U.S. 269, 277-78(2005). 22 Respondent is directed to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to petitioner’s motion. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Respondent is directed to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to 25 petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance within thirty days from the date of this 26 order. 27 2. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed twenty-one days thereafter. 28 /// 1 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order, and a copy of petitioner’s 2 motion (ECF No. 11) on Tami Krenzin, Supervising Deputy Attorney General. 3 4 || Dated: October 22, 2025 5 ( haa Spo CHI 500 KIM 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 /1/vale0639.100.R 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown