Legal Opinion

Daniel William Sedano v. Brad Macomber

District Court, E.D. California

Decided August 10, 2026No. 1:26-cv-02862Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL WILLIAM SEDANO, Case No. 1:26-cv-02862-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY AND STAYING 13 v. PROCEEDINGS 14 BRAD MACOMBER, (ECF No. 2) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, represented by counsel, is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and moved to stay pursuant to 20 Rhines v. Weber,

544 U.S. 269

(2005), because the petition is completely unexhausted.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pace v. DiGuglielmoSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  2. Rhines v. WeberSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  3. Alfonso Blake v. Renee BakerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
  4. Fred Jay Jackson v. Ernest C. Roe, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  5. Wooten v. KirklandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API