Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02628/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02628-0/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 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ammed Hassan, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-18-02628-PHX-SRB (BSB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 On August 20, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C.§ 2254. (Doc. 1.) On October 25, 2018, he filed a motion to stay this 

proceeding while he seeks a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. 

(Doc. 9.) Thus, Petitioner may believe that he is required to present his claims to the 

United States Supreme Court before seeking habeas corpus review in this Court. As set 

forth below, Petitioner is not required to present his claim to the Supreme Court and he 

has not established any basis to stay this proceeding. Therefore, the Court recommends 

that the motion to stay be denied. 

I. Exhaustion of State Remedies

 Before the federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner, the 

prisoner must exhaust remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); 

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To exhaust state remedies, a petitioner 

must afford the state courts the opportunity to rule upon the merits of his federal claims 

by “fairly presenting” them to the state’s “highest” court in a procedurally appropriate 

Case 2:18-cv-02628-SRB Document 12 Filed 11/14/18 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

manner. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (“[t]o provide the State with the 

necessary ‘opportunity,’ the prisoner must ‘fairly present’ his claim in each appropriate 

state court . . . thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the claim”); Castille v. 

Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 349 (1989) (same). In Arizona, unless a prisoner has been 

sentenced to death, the “highest court” requirement is satisfied if the petitioner has 

presented his federal claim to the Arizona Court of Appeals either through the direct 

appeal process or post-conviction proceedings. Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 998 

(9th Cir. 2005). 

II. Stay and Abeyance Procedure 

 Under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005), a district court has limited 

discretion to hold in abeyance a habeas petition containing both exhausted and 

unexhausted claims (a mixed petition) to allow a petitioner to exhaust his claims while 

the federal proceedings are stayed. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. A district court also has the 

discretion to stay and hold in abeyance a fully unexhausted petition. Mena v. Long, 813 

F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2016). 

 “Staying a federal habeas petition frustrates AEDPA’s [Anti-Terrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act] objective of encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner to 

delay the resolution of federal proceedings.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. “Because granting 

a stay effectively excuses a petitioner’s failure to present his claims first to the state 

courts, stay and abeyance is only appropriate when” (1) there is good cause for 

petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court; (2) the unexhausted claims 

are potentially meritorious; and (3) there is no indication that the petitioner has engaged 

in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Id. at 277-278. 

 Petitioner requests a stay to seek review of “one 14th Amendment question of law 

that has gone unanswered” in the United States Supreme Court. (Doc. 9 at 1.) Petitioner 

is referring to the Fourteenth Amendment claim that he raises in Ground One. (Doc. 1 at 

6, Doc. 11.) In Ground One, Petitioner asserts that his “right to gather evidence under 

police authority” was violated. (Doc. 1 at 6; Doc. 11 at 2.) Petitioner is not required to 

Case 2:18-cv-02628-SRB Document 12 Filed 11/14/18 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

present his claims to the Supreme Court to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. 

Additionally, assuming Petitioner failed to exhaust Ground One in state court, he has not 

shown good cause for his failure to exhaust that claim or shown that it is potentially 

meritorious. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-278. Therefore, Petitioner has not satisfied the 

criteria for staying this § 2254 proceeding. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 9) be DENIED. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s 

judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. The parties have fourteen days within which 

to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 Dated this 14th day of November, 2018. 

 

Case 2:18-cv-02628-SRB Document 12 Filed 11/14/18 Page 3 of 3