Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00970/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00970-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES K. GOLDSMITH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0970 WBS DAD P

vs.

D.K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On May 23, 2007, petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in

forma pauperis. Petitioner also filed a motion for stay and abeyance. On June 15, 2007,

petitioner filed an amended petition and an identical motion for stay and abeyance. 

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

After a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of receiving stolen property. In light of

petitioner’s prior criminal record, the trial judge sentenced petitioner to twenty-nine years to life

in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on July 18, 2005. 

Plaintiff did not appeal his judgment of conviction to the California Supreme Court. 

Case 2:07-cv-00970-RAJ-JLW Document 9 Filed 08/02/07 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

2

Petitioner alleges two grounds for relief in his amended petition. First, petitioner

alleges the trial court abused its discretion in violation of the Due Process Clause when it

violated the terms of a prior 1980 negotiated plea agreement. Second, petitioner alleges that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel. 

In petitioner’s motions to hold these proceedings in abeyance, petitioner alleges

that, on September 29, 2005, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the California

Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court denied the petition on July 19, 2006. On March

12, 2007, petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the California

Supreme Court. The second petition is still pending before that court. Petitioner requests an

order staying his federal petition, pending disposition of his state petition. 

The United States Supreme Court has affirmed the district court’s discretion to

stay a federal habeas proceeding to allow a petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state

court where there is good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust all claims in state court

before filing a federal habeas petition. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005); see also

Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000) (authorizing district courts to stay fully

exhausted federal petitions pending exhaustion of other claims); Calderon v. United States Dist.

Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court cautioned, however, that “stay

and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances,” and “district courts should

place reasonable time limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Id. at 277-78. The

Court noted that district courts should not grant a stay if the petitioner has engaged in abusive

litigation tactics or intentional delay or if the unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Id. at

278.

Petitioner’s pending motions are vague and conclusory and do not provide

sufficient facts and information to satisfy the requirements of Rhines. Accordingly, the court is

unable to determine whether petitioner had good cause for failing to exhaust all of his claims

before filing this action, whether petitioner’s unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, or

Case 2:07-cv-00970-RAJ-JLW Document 9 Filed 08/02/07 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

3

whether petitioner has been diligent in pursuing his unexhausted claims. See Taylor, 134 F.3d at

987 nn. 8 & 11 (failure to make a showing of diligence in pursuing additional claims may

foreclose a stay). For these reasons, petitioner’s motions will be denied without prejudice to the

filing of a new motion for a stay and abeyance.

Petitioner will be granted thirty days to file a new motion for a stay and abeyance. 

The motion must (1) show good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust all claims prior to filing

this action, (2) demonstrate why each of petitioner’s unexhausted claims is potentially

meritorious, (3) describe the status of any state court proceedings on the unexhausted claims, and

(4) demonstrate that petitioner has acted with diligence in pursuing additional claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s May 23, 2007 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. Petitioner’s May 23, 2007 and June 15, 2007 motions for a stay and abeyance

are denied without prejudice; and

3. Within thirty days from the service of this order, petitioner shall file a renewed

motion for a stay and abeyance as set forth in this order.

DATED: August 2, 2007.

DAD:9

gold0970msty

Case 2:07-cv-00970-RAJ-JLW Document 9 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 3