Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06552/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06552-3/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

ANDRE BAIZA,

Petitioner,

v.

GEORGE GALAZA,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 02-6552 OWW SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST

FOR STAY AND GRANTING PETITIONER

FIFTEEN DAYS TO INFORM THE COURT

OF HIS INTENT ON HOW TO PROCEED 

[Doc. 44]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 11,

2002. 

On April 18, 2003, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition based on

Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state court remedies. Petitioner did not file an opposition.

On June 30, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Tulare

County Superior Court. The petition was denied on July 10, 2003. (Respondent’ s Motion to

Dismiss, filed July 21, 2005, Lodged Item No. 2.) 

On July 18, 2003, Petitioner filed a request to withdraw the unexhausted claims and

indicated that he was in the process of exhausting the claims in the state court. (Court Doc. 17.)

On July 31, 2003, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to withdraw the unexhausted

Case 1:02-cv-06552-OWW -SMS Document 45 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 4
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

claims and granted Petitioner’s request to hold the petition in abeyance pending exhaustion at the

state court level.

On October 24, 2003, Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

Tulare County Superior Court. The petition was denied on October 27, 2003. (Respondent ’s

Lodged Item No. 3.)

On November 14, 2003, Petitioner filed a third petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

Tulare County Superior Court. The petition was denied on November 18, 2003. (Respondent’s

Lodged Item No. 4.)

On January 13, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the

California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. The petition was denied on January 29,

2004. (Respondent’s Lodged Item No. 5.)

On March 19, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the

California Supreme Court. The court denied the petition on February 2, 2005. (Respondent’s

Lodged Item No. 6.)

 On May 12, 2005, the Court issued an order lifting the stay and directed Petitioner to file

an amended petition. Petitioner filed an amended petition on June 14, 2005. On June 17, 2005,

the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the amended petition.

On July 21, 2005, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition arguing

again that it is a mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Petitioner

filed an opposition on August 16, 2005. 

On September 8, 2005, the undersigned filed Findings and Recommendations that

Respondent's motion to dismiss be granted; the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed

as a mixed petition; and, that Petitioner be granted leave to file a second amended petition

deleting the unexhausted claims or a motion requesting that the Court strike the unexhausted

claims as an alternative to suffering dismissal. On October 7, 2005, Petitioner filed a document

entitled "Second Amended Petition." There, Petitioner stated that if deleting the unexhausted

claims would not hurt his chance of one day having the unexhausted claims reviewed, he would

withdraw the unexhausted claims. In response to Petitioner's filing, on October 28, 2005, the

Case 1:02-cv-06552-OWW -SMS Document 45 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 4
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 1AEDPA refers to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

3

court issued an order requiring Petitioner to specifically inform the Court of his intent to either

withdraw only the unexhausted claims and proceed with the exhausted claims or dismiss the

entire action, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of that order. The Court further

advised that the failure to respond would result in the Findings and Recommendations of

September 8, 2005, being submitted to the District Judge for dismissal of the entire action

without further opportunity to withdraw the unexhausted claims. On December 9, 2005,

Petitioner filed a second motion to stay the petition pending exhaustion in state court. 

DISCUSSION

In his second motion for a stay, Petitioner indicates that he is requesting a stay to

thoroughly address his claims for relief at the Supreme Court. Petitioner states, “I’ve only

desired to comply with courts orders at the same time bring forth all my ‘claims’ and ‘grounds’

for relief at Federal Level all at the same time.” (Motion, at 1.) 

In Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a district court

has discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to

the state court in the first instance and then to return to federal court for review of his perfected

petition. 

Nevertheless, stay and abeyance is available only in limited circumstances, because the

procedure frustrates AEDPA’s1 objective of encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner to delay

the resolution of federal proceedings and undermines AEDPA’s goal of streamlining federal

habeas proceedings by decreasing a petitioner’s incentive to exhaust all his claims in state court

prior to filing his federal petition. Id. The Supreme Court held that a 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. 

 First, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate “good cause” for failing to exhaust the

unexhausted claims during his first return to state court. Second, as Petitioner was advised in 

the Findings and Recommendations of September 8, 2005, Petitioner was previously granted a

stay of the petition and returned to state court to exhaust the unexhausted claims and any further

Case 1:02-cv-06552-OWW -SMS Document 45 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

stay of the case to allow Petitioner to pursue a third round of review in the state courts frustrates

AEDPA’s objective of encouraging finality and undermines ADEPA’s objective of streamlining

federal habeas proceedings. Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1534 (2005). Therefore,

Petitioner’s motion for a further stay of the proceeding must be DENIED. The Court will grant

Petitioner one final opportunity to either withdraw the unexhausted claims or dismiss the entire

petition pursuant to this Court’s previous orders. 

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay is DENIED; and

2. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner must

inform this Court of his intent to either withdraw the unexhausted claims or

dismiss the entire petition, without prejudice; and

3. The failure to respond to this Court’s order will result in the submission of the

Court’s September 8, 2005, Findings and Recommendations being submitted to

the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger for dismissal of the entire action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06552-OWW -SMS Document 45 Filed 12/21/05 Page 4 of 4