Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01744/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01744-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Pursuant to CivilLocalRule 7-13,this order maynotbe cited exceptas provided byCivil

Local Rule 3-4(e). 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO LEYBA,

Petitioner, No. C 05-1744 PJH

v. ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING RE:

PETITIONER’S REQUEST 

FOR STAY TO EXHAUST CLAIMS

IN STATE COURT1

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

State prisoner Antonio Leyba (“Leyba”) seeks federal habeas relief pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. His timely petition, filed with this court on April 26, 2005, raises two claims for

relief – one that is exhausted, and the other unexhausted. Leyba also filed with his petition on

April 26, 2005, an application to hold the instant petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of

the unexhausted claim in state court.

Leyba is correct that the United States Supreme Court recently held in Rhines v.

Weber that a district court may hold in abeyance a “mixed” habeas petition including both

exhausted and unexhausted claims. See 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1533 (2005). However, what

Leyba ignores in his application for an abeyance is the Supreme Court’s determination that

“stay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances” where: (1) the petitioner

has shown good cause for his failure to exhaust the claims prior to filing his federal petition;

(2) the unexhausted claim(s) are not “plainly meritless;” and (3) the petitioner has not engaged

in “abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay.” See id. at 1535-36. In so holding, the

Case 5:05-cv-01744-JF Document 3 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Supreme Court noted that:

Stay and abeyance, if employed too frequently, has the potential

to undermine the[] . . .purposes [of AEDPA’s statute of limitations]. 

Staying a federal habeas petition frustrates AEDPA’s objective of

encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner to delay the resolution

of the federal proceedings. It also undermines AEDPA’s goal of

streamlining habeas proceedings by decreasing a petitioner’s

incentive to exhaust all of his claims in state court

prior to filing his federal petition.

Id. at 1534.

Here, Leyba notes that he is currently litigating the unexhausted claim in state court

habeas proceedings, and that he should be granted a stay pending conclusion of the state

court proceedings. Again, Leyba fails to mention that he filed the state habeas petition on

April 25, 2005, one day prior to filing the instant federal habeas petition and one day prior to

expiration of AEDPA’s statute of limitations. Leyba does not explain his delay in instituting

the state habeas proceedings or his failure to raise the unexhausted claim previously in his

direct appeal before the state courts. Following Rhine, such explanation is essential to this

court’s evaluation of the propriety of an abeyance. See id; see also Pace v. DiGuglielmo,

2005 WL 957194 at *5 (U.S. Sup. Ct. April 27, 2005) (reiterating holding in Rhine, and noting

that “[a] petitioner’s reasonable confusion about whether a state filing would be timely will

ordinarily constitute ‘good cause’ for him to file in federal court”).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Leyba is ORDERED to file a supplemental brief

and/or declarations demonstrating GOOD CAUSE for his request for a stay of the instant

petition pending state court proceedings. Lebya shall file the brief no later than 14 days

from the date of this order. The court will rule on Leyba’s request for a stay following its

consideration of the supplemental brief and any supporting declarations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01744-JF Document 3 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 2