# Opinion > District Court, E.D. California · June 11, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11387936 ## Case - **Full name:** Shanon Shorter v. Warren L. Montgomery, et al. - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** June 11, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11387936 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANON SHORTER, No. 2:18-cv-0537 DAD AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARREN L. MONTGOMERY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 28, 2018, this case was stayed 19 pursuant to the parties’ stipulation in order to allow petitioner to return to state court and exhaust 20 an additional claim related to Senate Bill 1437,1 which petitioner asserted also included 21 Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection issues. ECF No. 23. On February 6, 22 2026, petitioner moved to lift the stay. ECF No. 56. He asserted that his co-defendant had 23 recently been granted federal habeas relief on issues similar to those he raised in Claim One of the 24 petition and that the stay should be lifted to “allow the parties to brief the issue of whether a writ 25 of habeas corpus should issue based on the favorable decision in the codefendant’s case issuing a 26 1 Senate Bill 1437 “amended the law relating to accomplice liability for murder” and included “a 27 procedure for a defendant convicted of felony murder or murder under a ‘natural and probable consequences’ theory to obtain retroactive relief.” Brown v. Atchley, 76 F. 4th 862, 869-70 (9th 28 Cir. 2023) (citations omitted). 1 || writ of habeas corpus.” ECF No. 56-4 at 5. Respondent opposed the motion, arguing that 2 || petitioner had not provided notification that he had exhausted the claim that was the basis of the 3 || stay and that the basis for lifting the stay was premature because his co-defendant’s case was on 4 | appeal in the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 60. Petitioner was granted extensions of time to file a reply 5 || (ECF Nos. 62, 64), and the deadline expired on June 3, 2026, without a reply being filed. On 6 || June 2, 2026, respondent filed a notice that the judgement granting relief in petitioner’s co- 7 || defendant’s case had been vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition in 8 || accordance with the parties’ joint request. ECF No. 65. Petitioner has not addressed the vacatur 9 || of the order granting his co-defendant’s petition. 10 Because the order on which petitioner based his request to lift the stay has now been 11 || vacated, petitioner will be required to advise the court whether he intends to proceed with his 12 || motion to lift the stay. If petitioner does not intend to proceed, he shall withdraw the motion. If 13 || petitioner intends to proceed with the motion, he is cautioned that if the stay is lifted this case will 14 | move forward on the claims in the petition only and without consideration of the claims he sought 15 || to return to state court to exhaust unless they are now exhausted and petitioner moves to amend 16 || the petition. A decision to proceed on the petition without first exhausting the additional claims 17 || and amending them into the petition may result in those claims being barred in this court. See 28 18 || U.S.C. § 2244(b) (barring second or successive petitions). 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days and as set forth above, 20 || petitioner shall notify this court as to how he intends to proceed with his motion to lift the stay. 21 | DATED: June 11, 2026 ~ 22 AMhan—Chne ALLISON CLAIRE 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11387936. Public record. Not legal advice.