Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00909/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00909-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY COY COCHRAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JAMES TILTON, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-0909-LJO- WMW HC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR STAY

[Doc. 4]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On October 23, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for a stay of this case pending the

exhaustion of his claims in state court. Specifically, Petitioner states that six of the claims he

previously presented to the state courts were not properly exhausted, and were therefore not

raised in the present petition. Petitioner seeks an order holding this petition in abeyance until

he can exhaust these six claims in state court. He also seeks an order granting him leave to

Case 1:06-cv-00909-CRB Document 6 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

amend the current petition to include those claims after they are exhausted.

A district court does have discretion to hold in abeyance a petition containing only

exhausted claims. Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618,620 (9 Cir. th

1998); Calderon v. United States District Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d. 981, 988 (9 Cir 1998); th

Greenawalt, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9 Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). th

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that its holding in Taylor in no way granted "district

courts carte blanche to stay even fully exhausted habeas petitions." Taylor, 134 F.3d at 988

n.11. Rather, a stay should be granted in exceptional cases only: the claims the petition seeks

to pursue must be cognizable under § 2254; there must be a likelihood of prejudice to the

petitioner should a stay be denied; and there must be no evidence that the motion for a stay is

brought to delay, to vex, or harass, or that the request is an abuse of the writ. See, Fetterly v.

Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301-02 (9 Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 914 (1994); see also, th

Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9 Cir. 1997). In addition, a district cannot th

stay habeas proceedings indefinitely pending exhaustion in state court as to do so would

make this Court’s compliance with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s

requirement for prompt resolution of § 2254 petitions impossible. 

In this case, the court finds that the claims Petitioner wishes to exhaust appear to be

cognizable under § 2254, there is a likelihood of prejudice to Petitioner if the stay is denied

because the claims may be foreclosed by the running of the statute of limitations, and there is

no indication of improper motive in seeking the stay.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) Petitioner’s motion for a stay of these proceedings pending exhaustion of his

additional six claims in state court is HEREBY GRANTED;

2) This petition is HEREBY STAYED pending exhaustion of the additional six claims

in state court;

3) Petitioner is GRANTED LEAVE to file a first amended petition following the

Case 1:06-cv-00909-CRB Document 6 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

exhaustion of his six additional claims in state court. The first amended petition shall

contain only the claims in the original petition, the two presently exhausted claims

which were omitted from the present petition, and the six newly exhausted claims. 

The first amended petition SHALL BE FILED within thirty (30) days of the

exhaustion of Petitioner’s six additional claims.

4) Petitioner SHALL FILE a status report concerning the progress of his claims in state

court every sixty days, commencing sixty days from the date of service of this order. 

Petitioner shall immediately inform the court upon the exhaustion of his claims. 

Petitioner is cautioned that failure to timely file his status reports will result in the

termination of the stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00909-CRB Document 6 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 3