Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03260-0/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON KING,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVE DAVEY, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 15-cv-03260-DMR (PR)

ORDER STAYING HABEAS

PROCEEDINGS; DIRECTING 

PETITIONER TO FILE 

QUARTERLY STATUS 

REPORTS; AND DIRECTING 

CLERK TO 

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE 

THIS CASE UNTIL THE COURT 

ISSUES ORDER LIFTING STAY

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed his initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He has since filed an 

amended petition, which is the operative petition in this action. Dkt. 6. In his amended petition, 

Petitioner admits that only one out of his five claims has been exhausted in state court; therefore, 

he requests a stay of the proceedings while he completes the process of exhausting his other four 

claims in state court. Dkt. 6 at 10.1 Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this 

action. Dkt. 5. 

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. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). The 

exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim (1) has been “fairly presented” to the 

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

 

1

Page number citations refer to those assigned by the court’s electronic case management filing 

system and not those assigned by Petitioner.

Case 3:15-cv-03260-EMC Document 9 Filed 10/02/15 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 California

available, see Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). Petitioner states that he has 

filed a state habeas petition, which is currently pending before the state superior court and includes 

the claims that were not exhausted at the time he filed the instant federal petition. See Dkt. 6 at 4; 

see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). Accordingly, the instant federal petition is a mixed petition. 

District courts have the authority to issue stays of mixed petitions and the Antiterrorism 

and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) does not deprive them of that authority. Rhines v. 

Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). However, the district 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. Here, the court finds that Petitioner has not engaged in 

dilatory tactics and the unexhausted claims appear to be potentially meritorious.

Good cause appearing, Petitioner’s request for a stay is GRANTED, and the petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus is construed as a protective petition and STAYED so that Petitioner can 

exhaust his unexhausted claims in the state courts. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 

(2005) (prisoners who run risk of having federal statute of limitation expire while exhausting their 

state remedies may avoid this predicament “by filing a ‘protective’ petition in federal court and 

asking the federal court to stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are 

exhausted”); see also Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78 (district court has authority to stay mixed 

petition where there was good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust claim in state court and the 

claim is potentially meritorious).

Petitioner must act diligently in exhausting his state judicial remedies, or the stay may be 

lifted. He must file quarterly reports describing the progress of his state court proceedings, 

commencing twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order and continuing every ninety (90) 

days thereafter until his state court proceedings are terminated. He must also attach to his status 

Case 3:15-cv-03260-EMC Document 9 Filed 10/02/15 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 California

reports copies of the cover page of any document that he files with or receives from the state 

courts relating to the claims.

The Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of 

this action. Nothing further will take place in this action until Petitioner receives a final decision 

from the highest state court and, within twenty-eight (28) days of doing so, moves to reopen the 

action, lift the court’s stay and amend the stayed petition to add the newly-exhausted claims. 

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 7.

This Order terminates Docket No. 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2015

______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03260-EMC Document 9 Filed 10/02/15 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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVE DAVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:15-cv-03260-DMR 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 2, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached Order, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jason King ID: AK5267

Corcoran State Prison

4001 King Avenue

P.O. Box 8800

Corcoran, CA 93212 

Dated: October 2, 2015

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable DONNA M. RYU

Case 3:15-cv-03260-EMC Document 9 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 4