Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04465/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04465-0/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)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL G. SIFUENTES,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-4465 PJH (PR)

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS;

ORDER TO ADMINISTRATIVELY

CLOSE CASE

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner moves for a stay of

proceedings to allow him to exhaust some of his claims in state court. 

District courts have authority to stay mixed petitions to allow exhaustion. Rhines v.

Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). Such stays can, however, only be granted upon a

showing of good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust the issues before filing the federal

petition, and a showing that the issues which the petitioner proposes to exhaust are

“potentially meritorious.” Id.

 As to good cause, petitioner alleges that his counsel failed to inform him of the

denial of his petition for review by the California Supreme Court, and in fact concealed from

him that it had been denied. He thus had little time to get this petition on file and did not

have time to exhaust his additional issue. He has shown good cause for the delay.

As to whether the issue is “potentially meritorious,” petitioner’s ineffective assistance

of appellate counsel issue is grounds for habeas relief if proved, so his claim is potentially

meritorious. See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 391-405 (1985) (due Process Clause of

Fourteenth Amendment guarantees criminal defendant effective assistance of counsel on

first appeal as of right).

Case 4:07-cv-04465-PJH Document 5 Filed 09/17/07 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

Petitioner has met the standard set out in Rhines. His motion for a stay (document

number 2 on the docket) is GRANTED. This case is STAYED to allow petitioner to present

his unexhausted issue or issues in state court, presumably by way of state petitions for

habeas corpus. If petitioner is not granted relief in state court, he may return to this court

and ask that the stay be lifted. 

The stay is subject to the following conditions: 

(1) petitioner must institute state court habeas proceedings within thirty days of this

order; and 

(2) petitioner must notify this court within thirty days after the state courts have

completed their review of his claims or after they have refused review of his claims. 

If either condition of the stay is not satisfied, this court may vacate the stay and act

on this petition. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278 (district court must effectuate timeliness

concerns of AEDPA by placing “reasonable limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and

back.”).

The clerk shall administratively close this case. The closure has no legal effect; it is

purely a statistical matter. The case will be reopened and the stay vacated upon

notification by petitioner in accordance with section two above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\sifuentes4465.STAY.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-04465-PJH Document 5 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 2