Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00735/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00735-5/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

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP FRANCIS GRAZIDE,

Petitioner,

v.

THOMAS FELKER, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-00735 LJO MJS (HC)

ORDER VACATING STAY

[Doc. 10]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 15, 2008, this Court granted Petitioner’s motion to stay the instant

proceeding while he returned to state court to exhaust certain claims. (Order Granting

Stay, ECF No. 10.) Petitioner was instructed to file status reports every sixty days

thereafter. (Id.) Petitioner filed nine status reports regarding his efforts to exhaust state

remedies. (Status Reports, ECF Nos. 11-14, 17, 19-20, 22-23.)

On July 1, 2010, Petitioner filed his final status report indicating that all state

remedies have been exhausted. (Status Report of June 28, 2010, ECF No. 23.) Therefore,

the Court will vacate the stay of the instant proceeding. 

However, it remains unclear as to whether Petitioner has in fact exhausted all state

remedies. According to him, the claims were presented to the California Superior Court,

Case 1:07-cv-00735-MJS Document 24 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 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 AEDPA refers to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 1

-2-

County of Inyo, not the California Supreme Court as this Court instructed in its order of

June 7, 2007. (Id.; Order, ECF No. 7.) 

As discussed by the Supreme Court, the stay and abeyance procedure is available

only in limited circumstances because the procedure frustrates AEDPA’s objective of 1

encouraging finality and streamlining federal habeas proceedings. Rhines v. Weber, 544

U.S. 269, 277 (2005).

A mixed petition should not be stayed indefinitely... Without

time limits, petitioners could frustrate AEDPA's goal of finality

by dragging out indefinitely their federal habeas review. Thus,

district courts should place reasonable time limits on a

petitioner's trip to state court and back. See, e.g., Zarvela, 254

F.3d, at 381 ("[District courts] should explicitly condition the

stay on the prisoner's pursuing state court remedies within a

brief interval, normally 30 days, after the stay is entered and

returning to federal court within a similarly brief interval,

normally 30 days after state court exhaustion is completed").

And if a petitioner engages in abusive litigation tactics or

intentional delay, the district court should not grant him a stay

at all. See id., at 380-381. 

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78.

This action has been stayed for nearly two years to allow Petitioner to exhaust

several of the claims presented in his federal petition. Continuing the stay at this point

would run afoul of the consideraions enumerated above and interfere with the Court's need

to manage its docket. While the public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits,

Petitioner has had adequate opportunity to exhaust his claims and return to federal court.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the stay of the instant

proceeding is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00735-MJS Document 24 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 2