Shepard v. Gipson

Full title: MALCOM SHEPARD, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, et al., Respondents.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 10, 2013

2:13-cv-1812 AC P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2013)

Opinion

MALCOM SHEPARD, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, et al., Respondents. No. 2:13-cv-1812 AC P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 10, 2013

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

         Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

         In his petition, petitioner has set forth four claims which he asserts are exhausted, but has also has filed a motion for stay and abeyance pending exhaustion of a claim involving DNA testing, which petitioner asserts will be relevant to his claim of actual innocence. ECF No. 4. Before addressing petitioner's motion, the court will consider briefing by respondent.

         Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

         1. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

         2. Respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner's motion for a stay (ECF No. 4) within thirty (30) days.

         3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order and the consent/reassignment form contemplated by Appendix A(k) to the Local Rules of this court on Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General.