Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-4430
01-23-2012
DERRICK NELLON v. N. BURL CAIN, WARDEN
ORDER
Petitioner has filed a "Motion for Clarification of Cause." Rec. Doc. 12. In that filing, petitioner states that his original filing was meant as a motion for a stay rather than as an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That motion for clarification is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted to the extent that petitioner wishes to clarify that he is seeking a stay in this proceeding. The Court is aware of that fact. However, because petitioner also filed a § 2254 application in connection with his motion for a stay, as he was required to do, the motion for clarification is denied to the extent that petitioner is asking that the Court not to consider his underlying federal application in the event the requested stay is denied.
Petitioner has also filed a "Motion to Supplement the Record." Rec. Doc. 21. That motion is GRANTED, and the Court will consider the exhibits petitioner has provided to the extent allowed by federal law.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this twenty-third day of January, 2012.
_____________
SALLY SHUSHAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE