Hector Arnulfo German Reyes v. Warden, FCI Mendota

Reyes · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · November 6, 2025 · No. 1:24-cv-01543-CDB (HC)

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. Whether respondent established sufficient hardship or inequity to warrant staying the § 2241 proceedings under the factors governing judicial stays.
  2. 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 PDF
Loading document…