Magana v. Haynes

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA XAVIER MICHAEL MAGANA, Case No. 3:22-cv-05682-LK-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 8 MOTION TO STAY AND ABEY RONALD HAYNES, Respondent.

11 This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion to stay. Dkt. 5. Respondent has filed a response that—while not waiving any defenses to the petition—agrees a stay is appropriate. Dkt. 12.

14 District courts may use a “stay-and-abeyance” procedure while a petitioner exhausts his claims in state court. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275-77; Calderon v. United States District Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 1998).

17 Here, petitioner asserts there are ongoing proceedings in his state court matter that could render his federal habeas petition moot. Dkt. 5. Respondent agrees a stay is appropriate because currently pending state court proceedings could render moot the issues presented in this matter. Dkt. 12 at 2.

21 After reviewing the relevant record, the court concludes petitioner’s motion should be granted. The Court ORDERS as follows: 23 1. Petitioner’s motion to stay (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED. This case is stayed.

1 2. Because petitioner is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, respondent is 2 directed to file a report every ninety (90) days informing the Court of the 3 status of petitioner’s state proceedings. The first status report is due on or 4 before March 6, 2023 and shall include the state court cause number.

5 3. If the state court dismisses or resolves petitioner’s state court proceedings, 6 petitioner is directed to inform the Court and file a motion to lift the stay within 7 30 days of the state court taking action.

8 4. Respondent shall file his answer to the petition (in accordance with Rule 5 of 9 the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases) 45 days after the Court enters an 10 order lifting the stay.

11 Dated this 5th day of December, 2022.

A Theresa L. Fricke 15 United States Magistrate Judge