Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01537/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01537-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON SHIMP,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, KAMALA HARRIS, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12cv01537 AJB(RBB)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE FOR PETITION FOR STAY

AND ABEYANCE [ECF No. 3]

Petitioner, Shannon Shimp, a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

on June 21, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [ECF No. 1]. His

"Motion for Stay and Abeyance Filed in Conjunction with Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus" was filed that same day [ECF No. 3]. 

Shimp asks the Court to hold the Petition in abeyance while he

returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims.

In Rhines v. Weber 544 U.S. 269 (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, 544 U.S. at 276-77. The Rhines

1 12cv01537AJB(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01537-AJB-RBB Document 6 Filed 06/27/12 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

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, 544 U.S. at 177). The Court in Jackson noted that

the Rhines holding applies to stays of mixed petitions, but Rhines

did not comment on the validity of the withdraw and abeyance

procedure when unexhausted claims are withdrawn from a mixed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.

Regardless of whether Shimp’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance 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, the Petitioner must

satisfy the criteria for issuance of a stay. Under either

procedure, he must demonstrate there are arguably meritorious

claims that 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; see Anthony v. Cambra, 236

F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner shall address these

concerns in his brief in support of his Motion. In addition, he

should set forth facts in an attempt to demonstrate good cause for

his failure to timely exhaust the state court remedies. 

2 12cv01537AJB(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01537-AJB-RBB Document 6 Filed 06/27/12 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

The claims that Shimp seeks to return to state court and

exhaust are sufficiently identified to permit Respondents to file a

response addressing whether the claims are meritorious enough to

justify a stay. Nonetheless, Petitioner has not presented any

facts in an attempt to demonstrate good cause for his failure to

timely exhaust his state court remedies. Although Shimp generally

maintains that he was diligent in pursuing his state court

remedies, he does not allege any facts in support of this

contention. Without more, Petitioner has not asserted sufficient

facts to permit Respondents to adequately respond to the purported

good cause and diligence. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Petitioner may file a brief in support of his Motion for

Stay and Abeyance no later than July 17, 2012. Any response to the

Motion for Stay and Abeyance must be filed by Respondents no later

than August 7, 2012. The Petitioner may file a reply to the

Respondents' brief by August 28, 2012. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2012 ____________________________

 RUBEN B. BROOKS

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Battaglia

All Parties 

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\HABEAS\SHIMP1537\Order Setting Briefing Stay & Abey.wpd 3 12cv01537AJB(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01537-AJB-RBB Document 6 Filed 06/27/12 Page 3 of 3