Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03989/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03989-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN LEE PARKER,

Petitioner,

 v.

LARRY SMALL,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-03989 WHA

ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING

RE PETITIONER’S REQUEST

FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE AND

GRANTING EXTENSION FOR

PETITIONER’S TRAVERSE 

Petitioner seeks leave to stay and abet the instant action so that he can exhaust certain

unexhausted claims in the California Supreme Court. Under AEDPA, petitioner’s one-year

deadline to file his federal habeas petition was August 12, 2009. Petitioner filed his habeas

petition pro per to meet the deadline, and has since retained counsel, Attorney Bradley S.

Sandler . In a declaration attached to petitioner’s motion to stay, Attorney Sandler states that

respondent opposes a stay.

In limited circumstances, a district court has the discretion to stay and hold in abeyance

a habeas corpus petition pending exhaustion of state remedies. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269,

277–78 (2005). Stay and abeyance is only appropriate when the district court determines there

was good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court. Petitioner here

alleges ineffective assistance of counsel at trial including that defense counsel (1) failed to call a

legitimate alibi witness, (2) failed to adequately impeach certain prosecution witnesses, and (3)

did not adequately investigate what petitioner characterizes as largely circumstantial evidence

against him.

Case 3:09-cv-03989-WHA Document 15 Filed 03/15/10 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

It would be premature to rule on petitioner’s request without first considering

respondent’s viewpoint. Respondent shall file a response to petitioner’s request on or before

NOON ON MARCH 29, 2010.

Petitioner also requests a continuance of the filing date of the traverse in this matter

pending disposition of his request for stay and abeyance. Petitioner’s traverse is currently due

on March 15, 2010. Petitioner argues that it would be more efficient for him to delay filing his

traverse until his request for a stay and abeyance is ruled upon. This request is GRANTED. In

the event that a stay and abeyance is denied, petitioner’s traverse shall be filed within TEN DAYS

thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-03989-WHA Document 15 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2