Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00136/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00136-0/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Minh Chau,

Petitioner,

v.

Domingo Uribe, Jr., Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 11cv136 AJB (PCL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO STAY

(Doc. No. 2.)

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Minh Chau has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings and hold the

petition in abeyance pending the exhaustion of four claims in state court. (Doc. No. 2.)

Respondent does not oppose the Motion. (Doc. No. 5.) For the following reasons, the Motion to

Stay is GRANTED.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner was convicted of attempted murder, assault, and burglary by a jury and was

sentenced on November 11, 2007 to a life term on the attempted murder count and to a 25-to-life

term on a firearm enhancement. (Doc. No. 2, at 2.) On August 7, 2009, the California Court of

Appeal affirmed his conviction and sentence. (Id.) The California Supreme Court denied

Petitioner’s timely appeal on October 28, 2009. (Id.) 

Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court on January 19,

2011. (Doc. No. 2, at 2.) A few days later on January 24, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for

habeas corpus relief in federal court. (Doc. No. 1.) On that same day, Petitioner filed a Motion to

Stay his federal habeas petition so that he could exhaust additional claims in state court. (Doc.

No. 2.) 

Case 3:11-cv-00136-AJB-PCL Document 7 Filed 04/19/11 Page 1 of 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

11cv136 AJB (PCL)

2

III. DISCUSSION

District courts have discretion to stay a federal habeas corpus proceeding and hold a

mixed petition in abeyance while a petitioner presents unexhausted claims for relief in state

court. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275-77 (2005). The Supreme Court has cautioned that

“stay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances,” and should be granted

where: (1) “the petitioner had good cause for failure to exhaust;” (2) “his unexhausted claims are

potentially meritorious and not plainly meritless;” and (3) “there is no indication that the

petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Id. at 278. 

Here, the Court finds that Petitioner has met the requirements for granting a stay in

proceedings. Petitioner has not engaged in dilatory tactics as both the federal and state habeas

corpus petitions were filed within two months of discovering new facts upon which the

unexhausted claims are based. (Doc. No. 2, at 8.) Petitioner also has good cause for prematurely

filing his habeas petition in federal court as only eight days remain before the expiration of the

statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) occurs in his case. Furthermore, Petitioner’s

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, instructional error and a right-to-counsel violation are

potentially meritorious under federal habeas law. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to stay. The

Petition will be held in abeyance pending resolution of the Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition in

state court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: April 19, 2011 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable Battaglia

All Parties and Counsel of Record

Case 3:11-cv-00136-AJB-PCL Document 7 Filed 04/19/11 Page 2 of 2