Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01361/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01361-0/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

1 06-CV-1361 JM (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J. BAUMER, Civil

No.

06-CV-1361 JM (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER RE: 

1. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY

AND ABEYANCE OF THE PETITION

[Doc. # 6];

2. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

TRAVERSE TO ANSWER

v.

JAMES TILTON, Warden,

Respondent.

This is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22,

2006, Respondent filed his Answer to the Petition. On September 29, 2006, the Court received

Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance of the Petition. On October 13, 2006, the Court received

Petitioner’s Request for Extension of Time to File Traverse to Answer. 

I. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance of the Petition. 

The Court hereby notifies Petitioner of the requirements for demonstrating that the stay and

abeyance procedure is appropriate in this case. In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) the Supreme

Court held that District Courts have limited discretion to hold in abeyance a mixed habeas petition, that

is, one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, in order to permit a petitioner to return to

state court to exhaust additional claims while the federal proceedings are stayed. Rhines, 544 U.S. at

277. The Rhines Court held that “a stay and abeyance ‘should be available only in limited

Case 3:06-cv-01361-JM-CAB Document 7 Filed 10/23/06 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 06-CV-1361 JM (CAB)

circumstances,’ and is appropriate only when the district court determines that there was ‘good cause’

for the failure to exhaust.” Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Rhines, 544 U.S.

at 277). The Court in Jackson noted that the Rhines holding applies to stays of mixed petitions, but that

Rhines did not comment on the validity of the withdraw and abeyance procedure approved of in

Calderon v. United States District Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 1998) and Kelly v. Small, 315

F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), where unexhausted claims are withdrawn from a mixed petition and the

resultant fully-exhausted petition is held in abeyance while petitioner returns to state court to exhaust the

unexhausted claims. Jackson, 425 F.3d at 661. Because Jackson involved a mixed petition, the Court

held that Rhines directly controlled, and “left for another day the question of whether the stay standard

announced by the Supreme Court in Rhines applies to our three-step stay-and-abeyance procedure.” Id.

Irrespective of whether Petitioner’s motion for stay is subject to the restrictions placed on this

Court’s discretion to issue a stay as set forth in Rhines, or is subject to the Ninth Circuit’s withdraw and

abeyance procedure, Petitioner must satisfy the criteria for issuance of a stay. Under either procedure he

must demonstrate there are arguably meritorious claims which he wishes to return to state court

to exhaust and that he is diligently pursuing his state court remedies with respect to those claims. 

Jackson, 425 F.3d at 661; Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000); Taylor, 134 F.3d at

987; see also Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070. Petitioner shall address these concerns in his brief in support of

his Motion. In addition, Petitioner should set forth facts in an attempt to demonstrate good cause for his

failure to timely exhaust the state court remedies with respect to his unexhausted claims.

Petitioner has already addressed the good cause requirement in his present motion. If Petitioner

wishes, upon reading this Order, to file an amended motion, he may do so no later than November 20,

2006. Respondent shall file an opposition to the motion no later than December 4, 2006. Petitioner

shall file his reply, if any, to Respondent’s opposition no later than December 18, 2006. No oral

argument will be held. The motion will be deemed under submission as of December 18, 2006. 

II. Petitioner’s Request for Extension of Time to File Traverse to Answer. 

Petitioner’s Traverse is currently due on or before October 25, 2006. Petitioner seeks an

extension of time to file his Traverse until a ruling is issued on his Motion for Stay and Abeyance of the

Petition. Petitioner’s request is granted. Petitioner shall file his Traverse within 30 days of the date of

Case 3:06-cv-01361-JM-CAB Document 7 Filed 10/23/06 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 06-CV-1361 JM (CAB)

the ruling on his Motion for Stay and Abeyance of the Petition. 

Petitioner also states that the copy of Respondent’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

Support of the Answer served on Petitioner is missing page 14. Petitioner requested a copy of page 14

from Respondent but has received no answer. Respondent is hereby ordered to provide a copy of page

14 to Petitioner within seven days of Respondent’s receipt of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 23, 2006

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01361-JM-CAB Document 7 Filed 10/23/06 Page 3 of 3