Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04833/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04833-4/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON ATLEE PARSONS,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-04833-HSG (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

Re: Dkt. No. 24

On October 30, 2014, petitioner, a pro se prisoner, filed this action for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as untimely. On 

October 27, 2015, the Court denied the motion without prejudice on the ground that the Ninth 

Circuit had recently certified to the California Supreme Court a case presenting the same issue 

presented by respondent’s motion to dismiss. See Robinson v. Lewis, 795 F.3d 926, 928 (9th Cir. 

2015) (certifying to the California Supreme Court the following question: “When a state habeas 

petitioner has no good cause for delay, at what point in time is that state prisoner’s petition, filed 

in a California court of review to challenge a lower state court’s disposition of the prisoner’s 

claims, untimely under California law?”). In denying respondent’s motion to dismiss, the Court 

ordered respondent to answer the petition, but provided, “If prior to the time respondent files an 

answer, the California Supreme Court accepts certification in Robinson, respondent may, in lieu of 

an answer, file a motion to stay the case pending resolution of the question presented for 

certification to the California Supreme Court.” Dkt. No. 23 at 6.

On December 16, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the request for certification 

in Robinson. See Robinson v. Lewis, 2015 D.A.R. 13410, No. S228137 (Cal. Dec. 16, 2015). On 

Case 4:14-cv-04833-HSG Document 25 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

January 5, 2015, respondent filed the instant application for stay of proceedings pending resolution 

of Robinson.

The application is GRANTED. In light of the fact that the California Supreme Court has a 

case in which it will likely determine whether the instant action is untimely, it would be an 

unnecessary consumption of judicial resources for this Court to decide the merits of the action at 

this time. 

Accordingly, the instant action is STAYED. The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY 

CLOSE the file. Within thirty (30) days from the date Robinson is decided, respondent must: 

(1) move to re-open the action, and (2) inform the Court whether he intends to renew his motion to 

dismiss. If he does not seek to renew the motion to dismiss following the California Supreme 

Court’s decision in Robinson, this Court will set a new briefing schedule for the filing of an 

answer and traverse addressing the merits of the petition. Nothing further will take place in this 

action until the Robinson case is decided by the California Supreme Court or until further order of 

this Court.

This order terminates Docket No. 24.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/12/2016

Case 4:14-cv-04833-HSG Document 25 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 2