Opinion
No. C 06-6236 MHP (pr).
November 15, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner filed a motion for a stay and abeyance of this action several months ago. He wants a stay so that he may exhaust state court remedies as to a claim regarding his sentence and cites Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856, 863-64 (2007), as authority for that claim. His motion indicates there are additional claims he wants to exhaust but he does not identify any claim other than the Cunningham claim. Without knowing what other claims he wants to exhaust, the court cannot determine whether a stay is appropriate. Petitioner also apparently did not serve a copy of his motion on respondent's counsel, and that provides a separate reason to deny the motion.
The motion for a stay and abeyance is DENIED. (Docket # 11.) This denial is without prejudice to petitioner filing a new motion for a stay and abeyance that identifies each and every claim he wishes to exhaust in state court. Any new motion for a stay and abeyance (like any filing) must have a proof of service attached showing that it has been served on opposing counsel. Any new motion for a stay and abeyance must be filed and served no later than December 21, 2007. Respondent's opposition to such a motion must be filed and served no later than January 11, 2008. Plaintiff's reply brief, if any, must be filed and served no later than January 31, 2008.
If petitioner does not file a motion for a stay and abeyance, he must file his traverse no later than December 21, 2007.
IT IS SO ORDERED.