Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02014/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02014-0/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

-1- 10cv2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEY MANUEL ESTRADA, Civil No. 10cv2014-DMS (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR STAY

AND ABEYANCE

v.

GEORGE NEOTTI, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a Petition for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 29, 2010, Petitioner

filed a Motion for Stay and Abeyance. Petitioner requests this Court to stay his Petition until

after the state supreme court has issued a ruling on unexhausted claims presented to that court

in a state habeas petition filed on September 28, 2010. Although it appears the claims presented

to the state court involve allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner does not

articulate the claims with any specificity.

The Court will notify Petitioner of the requirements for demonstrating that the stay and

abeyance procedure is appropriate in this case. Petitioner shall file a brief in support of the

Motion for stay and abeyance addressing these requirements no later than December 6, 2010.

Respondent shall file a response to the Motion for stay and abeyance no later than December

27, 2010. Petitioner shall file his reply, if any, to the Respondent’s brief no later than January

10, 2011. 

Case 3:10-cv-02014-DMS-KSC Document 9 Filed 11/02/10 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

27

28

-2- 10cv2014

In Rhines v. Weber 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005) the Supreme Court held that

District Courts have limited discretion to hold in abeyance a mixed habeas petition, that is, one

containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, in order to permit a petitioner to return to

state court to exhaust additional claims while the federal proceedings are stayed. Rhines, 125

S.Ct. at 1534-35. The Rhines Court held that “a stay and abeyance ‘should be available only in

limited circumstances,’ and is appropriate only when the district court determines that there was

‘good cause’ for the failure to exhaust.” Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005)

(quoting Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1535). The Court in Jackson noted that the Rhines holding applies

to stays of mixed petitions, but that Rhines did not comment on the validity of the withdraw and

and abeyance procedure approved of in Calderon v. United States District Court (Taylor), 134

F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 1998) and Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), where unexhausted

claims are withdrawn from a mixed petition and the resultant fully-exhausted petition is held in

abeyance while petitioner returns to state court to exhaust the unexhausted claims. Jackson, 425

F.3d at 661. Because Jackson involved a mixed petition, the Court held that Rhines directly

controlled, and “left for another day the question of whether the stay standard announced by the

Supreme Court in Rhines applies to our three-step stay-and-abeyance procedure.” Id. 

Irrespective of whether Petitioner’s motion for stay is subject to the restrictions placed

on this Court’s discretion to issue a stay as set forth in Rhines, or is subject to the Ninth Circuit’s

withdraw and abeyance procedure, Petitioner must satisfy the criteria for issuance of a stay.

Under either procedure he must demonstrate there are arguably meritorious claims which

he wishes to return to state court to exhaust and that he is diligently pursuing his state

court remedies with respect to those claims. Jackson, 425 F.3d at 661; Anthony v. Cambra,

236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000); Taylor, 134 F.3d at 987; see also Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070.

Petitioner shall address these concerns in his brief in support of his Motion. In addition,

Petitioner should set forth facts in an attempt to demonstrate good cause for his failure to timely

exhaust the state court remedies with respect to his unexhausted claims.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-02014-DMS-KSC Document 9 Filed 11/02/10 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

27

28

-3- 10cv2014

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a brief in support of his Motion for stay and

abeyance no later than December 6, 2010, Respondent shall file a response to the Motion for

stay and abeyance no later than December 27, 2010, and Petitioner shall file his reply, if any,

to the Respondent’s brief no later than January 10, 2011. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 2, 2010

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02014-DMS-KSC Document 9 Filed 11/02/10 Page 3 of 3