Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02559/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02559-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO LEON, JR.,

Petitioner, No. 2:12-cv-2559 JAM KJN P

vs.

RON BARNES, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel or “pro se”, has filed a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The filing fee was paid on

November 13, 2012. 

On November 26, 2012, petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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).

In a letter filed October 12, 2012, petitioner concedes that the instant petition is a

mixed petition; that is, petitioner exhausted his state court remedies as to ground one, but has not

yet exhausted the other six grounds. (Dkt. No. 2.) Petitioner claims that his state court petition

is still pending in the Yolo County Superior Court. (Id.) Petitioner states that the statute of

1

Case 2:12-cv-02559-JAM-GGH Document 8 Filed 01/08/13 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

limitations deadline would expire October 9, 2012, absent tolling, and asks the court to stay this

action pending exhaustion of the claims presently pending in state court.

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the United States Supreme Court held

that a district court is permitted to stay a mixed petition – a petition containing both exhausted

and unexhausted claims – in “limited circumstances,” so that a petitioner may present his

unexhausted claims to the state court without losing his right to federal habeas review due to the

relevant one-year statute of limitations. 544 U.S. at 273-75, 277-78. The “stay and abeyance is

only appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s

failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.” Id. at 277. Under Rhines, a district court must

stay a mixed petition only if: (1) the petitioner has “good cause” for his failure to exhaust his

claims in state court; (2) the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious; and (3) there is no

indication that the petitioner intentionally engaged in dilatory litigation tactics. Id. at 278; King

v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). In Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416

(2005), the Supreme Court approved the filing of “protective petitions”:

Finally, petitioner challenges the fairness of our interpretation. He

claims that a “petitioner trying in good faith to exhaust state

remedies may litigate in state court for years only to find out at the

end that he was never ‘properly filed,’” and thus that his federal

habeas petition is time barred. Brief for Petition 30. A prisoner

seeking post conviction relief might avoid this predicament,

however, by filing a “protective” petition in federal court and

asking the federal court to stay and abey the federal habeas

proceedings until state remedies are exhausted. See Rhines v.

Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1531 (2005). A petitioner's

reasonable confusion about whether a state filing would be timely

will ordinarily constitute “good cause” for him to file in federal

court.

Pace, 544 U.S. at 416. 

Here, the court is unable to determine whether petitioner is entitled to a stay under

Rhines. Petitioner has not addressed Rhines. The record does not reflect when the first claim

was exhausted. Petitioner does not explain why the first ground is exhausted, but the remaining

six grounds are not exhausted. It is unclear what claims are pending in the Yolo County Superior

2

Case 2:12-cv-02559-JAM-GGH Document 8 Filed 01/08/13 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

Court; that is, whether the pending superior court petition contains the remaining six grounds. 

Accordingly, petitioner’s request for stay, contained in the October 12, 2012

letter, is denied without prejudice. Petitioner is granted thirty days in which to file a motion for

stay under Rhines, in which he addresses the three prongs set forth above. Id., 544 U.S. at 277-

78. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to timely file the motion for stay will result in an order

dismissing the petition with leave to file an amended petition including only the exhausted claim

for relief. 

1

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. Petitioner’s October 12, 2012 request for stay (dkt. no. 2) is denied without

prejudice; and

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, petitioner shall file a motion for

stay under Rhines. 

DATED: January 7, 2013

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

leon2559.fb

Petitioner is cautioned that if this action proceeds on an amended petition raising only the 1

exhausted claim, petitioner will risk forfeiting consideration of the unexhausted claims in this or any

other federal court. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991); see also Rose, 455 U.S. at 520-21;

Rule 9(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Petitioner is further cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of

limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year

period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion

of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations

is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is

pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

3

Case 2:12-cv-02559-JAM-GGH Document 8 Filed 01/08/13 Page 3 of 3