Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06641/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06641-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EDBERT JAMES III, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RALPH DIAZ, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. 19-06641 BLF (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

STAY; GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; INSTRUCTIONS TO 

CLERK

(Docket Nos. 3, 4) 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Petitioner has filed a 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Docket No. 4.) Petitioner has 

also filed a motion for stay and abeyance to exhaust additional claims in state court. 

(Docket No. 3.) For the reasons discussed below, the motion for a stay is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury in Contra Costa 

County Superior Court of first degree murder, attempted murder, and three counts of 

felony child endangerment. (Pet. Attach. at 1.) The jury also found true the personal use 

of a firearm allegations in connection with the first degree murder and attempted murder 

Case 5:19-cv-06641-BLF Document 5 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

counts. (Id.) Petitioner was sentenced on February 9, 2018, to a total of 116 years and 

eight months in state prison. (Id.) Petitioner appealed his conviction to the state appellate 

and high courts without success. (Pet. at 3.) 

Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas action on October 16, 2019. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Motion to Stay 

Petitioner requests a stay under Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), to exhaust 

newly discovered claims. (Docket No. 4.) The unexhausted claims involve allegations of 

ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsels, as well as cumulative error. (Id.) 

Prisoners in state custody seeking to challenge collaterally in federal habeas 

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state 

judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting 

the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and 

every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy, 

455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981); McNeeley v. 

Arave, 842 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if 

the federal claim (1) has been “fairly presented” to the state courts, see id.; Crotts v. Smith, 

73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996); or (2) no state remedy remains available, see Johnson v. 

Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Petitioner has clearly indicated that the petition contains newly 

discovered claims that have not been exhausted in the state courts. (Pet. Attach. 2.) 

Accordingly, the instant petition is a mixed petition. 

District courts have the authority to issue stays and AEDPA does not deprive them 

of that authority. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). However, the district 

Case 5:19-cv-06641-BLF Document 5 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

court’s discretion to stay a mixed petition is circumscribed by AEDPA’s stated purposes of 

reducing delay in the execution of criminal sentences and encouraging petitioners to seek 

relief in the state courts before filing their claims in federal court. Id. at 277. Because the 

use of a stay and abeyance procedure has the potential to undermine these dual purposes of 

AEDPA, its use is only appropriate where the district court has first determined that there 

was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust the claims in state court and that the 

claims are potentially meritorious. Id. The Court finds that Petitioner has not engaged in 

dilatory tactics and the unexhausted claims above are potentially meritorious. 

Consequently, Petitioner’s motion to stay this action while he exhausts all claims in the 

state courts will be granted. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. Petitioner’s request to stay the petition is GRANTED. (Docket No. 4.) 

The above-titled action is hereby STAYED until twenty-eight (28) days after the state 

high court’s final decision on Petitioner’s unexhausted claims. 

2. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED. (Docket No. 3.) 

3. If Petitioner intends to have this Court consider the unexhausted claims, he 

must have properly presented them to the Supreme Court of California, and if he has not 

obtained relief in state court, thereafter notify the Court within twenty-eight (28) days of 

the California Supreme Court’s decision, by filing a motion to reopen this action and 

stating therein that all the claims in the instant federal petition have been exhausted. 

4. The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay 

of this action. This has no legal effect; it is purely a statistical procedure. When Petitioner 

informs the Court that he has exhausted his additional claims, the case will be 

administratively re-opened. 

Case 5:19-cv-06641-BLF Document 5 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

This order terminates Docket Nos. 3 and 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _January 6, 2020_ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Granting Stay; Inst. To Clerk 

PRO-SE\BLF\HC.19\06641James_stay&ifp 

Case 5:19-cv-06641-BLF Document 5 Filed 01/06/20 Page 4 of 4