Opinion
Case No. C07-5545FDB.
November 27, 2007
ORDER
This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus petition has been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. On October 9, 2007, the court entered an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as unexhausted (Dkt. # 8). The same day petitioner filed a motion to stay the proceeding and a motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. # 6 and 7).
Petitioner's motions were denied (Dkt # 11). Petitioner has now filed a second motion to stay, a motion to supplement the record, and a letter asking the court to send back the "three' copies of the 280 page petition (Dkt. # 13, 14, and 15).
The court considers petitioner's motion to stay as a motion for reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration are addressed in Local Rule 7(h). This type of motion is disfavored and will only be granted upon a showing of manifest error or presentation of new facts or legal authority. Petitioner does not meet the criteria for a motion for reconsideration and now admits he filed his petition prematurely. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
The motion to supplement the record is a four page document that sets forth the 43 issues raised in the 280 page petition. The document does not supplement the record and will not be considered further. The motion to supplement the record is DENIED.
The court does not normally return documents that have been filed. Here, petitioner is asking the court to mail over 600 pages of materials. The motion is DENIED.
The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to petitioner.