(HC) Reginald Tanubagijo v. Daniel Paramo ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD TANUBAGIJO, No. 2:18-cv-02290-MCE-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 DANIEL PARAMO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a California inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this habeas 18 corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 26, 2019, the district court judge 19 adopted the Findings and Recommendations issued on March 13, 2019 and granted petitioner a 20 stay and abeyance pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1074 (9th Cir. 2002). ECF No. 26. 21 This same order directed petitioner to file a first amended § 2254 petition containing only his first 22 claim for relief which was properly exhausted in state court. ECF No. 26 at 2. In compliance 23 with this order, petitioner filed a first amended § 2254 petition on September 25, 2019. ECF No. 24 27. However, before the court could stay petitioner’s case to allow him to return to state court to 25 exhaust a second claim for relief, petitioner filed untimely objections to the March 13, 2019 26 Findings and Recommendations as well as a second amended § 2254 petition which contains a 27 second claim for relief that has not been properly exhausted in state court. ECF Nos. 28-29. 28 Petitioner’s most recent pleadings do not comply with this court’s July 26, 2019 order. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s untimely objections and second amended § 2254 filed on October 3, 2019 3 (ECF Nos. 28, 29) are disregarded as filed in violation of a court order. 4 2. Petitioner’s first amended habeas corpus application (ECF No. 27) containing a single 5 exhausted challenge to the trial court’s inquiry into juror misconduct is the pending 6 operative pleading in the instant case. 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively stay these proceedings in 8 accordance with this court’s July 26, 2019 order. 9 4. Petitioner is directed to file a Status Report with this court every 90 days concerning 10 his efforts to exhaust a second claim for relief in the California Supreme Court 11 challenging the trial court’s jury instructions. 12 5. Petitioner is further advised to file a Notice of Exhaustion within 30 days of any 13 decision issued by the California Supreme Court on this claim for relief. 14 | Dated: October 9, 2019 eo dp. Al x 15 CAROLYN K DELANEY 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 12/tanu2290.stay.docx 23 24 25 26 27 28