Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-2618 LKK JFM P
04-16-2013
DAVID D. LEE, Petitioner, v. LELAND McEWEN, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 1, 2013, petitioner filed a motion to stay this action (ECF No. 15) and a motion for an extension of time to file his traverse (ECF No. 14). On March 4, 2013, petitioner filed a traverse (ECF No. 16).
Review of the motion for stay shows that it is a motion in the alternative made in response to an apparent suggestion in language at page two of respondent's answer to the petition that one or more of petitioner's claims are unexhausted. After review of respondent's answer (ECF No. 12), this court finds that the discussion cited by petitioner was a statement of general legal principles by counsel for respondent and not a contention that the petition pending before this court contains one or more unexhausted claims. The court further finds that respondent has answered petitioner's claims on the merits and does not contend in that answer that any claim for habeas relief set forth in the petition is unexhausted. Accordingly, petitioner's motion for stay will be denied as unnecessary. Petitioner's motion for extension of time will be granted and petitioner's traverse will be deemed timely filed.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's February 1, 2013 motion for stay (ECF No. 15) is denied as unnecessary;
2. Petitioner's February 1, 2013 motion for extension of time (ECF No. 14) is granted; and
3. Petitioner's March 4, 2013 traverse (ECF No. 16) is deemed timely filed.
_________________
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE