Opinion
Civil No. 12-cv-358-SM
02-28-2013
George Quintero v. Edward Reilly, Warden, Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility
ORDER
George Quintero, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (doc. no. 1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter came before the court for preliminary review, and on January 31, 2013, the court issued an order (doc. no. 3) directing Quintero to amend his habeas petition to: 1) state what federal claims he seeks to raise in this action; and then to 2) either amend his petition to demonstrate that his claims have been exhausted in the state courts; or 3) move to stay this action to return to the state courts to exhaust any unexhausted claims.
Quintero has now filed a motion to stay (doc. no. 4) his petition to enable him to exhaust his claims. Quintero has not, however, stated what federal claims he seeks to raise in this action. Pursuant to Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, a habeas petition must, among other things: "(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; [and] (3) state the relief requested." Neither the petition (doc. no. 1) nor the motion to stay (doc. no. 4) contains the information required to satisfy Rule 2(c) at this time.
Accordingly, the motion to stay will be held in abeyance for thirty days, during which time Quintero must file an amended petition in this court stating, with specificity, what federal claims he seeks to raise in this action, facts to support each claim for relief, and the relief he requests. Once an amended petition has been filed, or the time for doing so has expired, the court will issue a ruling on Quintero's motion to stay (doc. no. 4).
SO ORDERED.
_______________
Daniel J. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge
February 28, 2013
cc: George Quintero, pro se