Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Respondent’s motion to stay proceedings in Hector Arnulfo German Reyes’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. The court instead extended Respondent’s deadline to file a response by 30 days, through December 3, 2025, and set the deadline for Petitioner’s traverse at 30 days after Respondent’s filing.
Holdings
- Respondent's motion to stay is denied because respondent did not address the governing CMAX factors and the balance of potential damage, hardship, and orderly administration of justice did not favor a stay.
- After denying the stay, the court continued respondent's deadline to respond to the petition by 30 days, through and including December 3, 2025.
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent established sufficient hardship or inequity to warrant staying the § 2241 proceedings under the factors governing judicial stays.
- Whether the court should extend respondent's deadline to respond to the habeas petition after denying the motion to stay.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)(followed)
- Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- United States v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., 381 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1250 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2019)(followed)
- CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)(followed)
- Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Blanc v. Taylor, No. 1:24-cv-01212-KES-CDB, 2025 WL 437661, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2025)(followed)
- Puente v. Warden, No. 1:23-cv-00083-CDB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…