Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05217/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05217-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE OLIVERA,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN SCRIBBER, Warden,

Respondent.

CV F-04-5217 OWW WMW HC 

ORDER GRANTING STAY

AND REQUIRING

PETITIONER TO FILE

STATUS REPORT

[Doc. 49]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. On August 18, 2006, Petitioner filed a request for a stay of

these proceedings pending the complete exhaustion of his state remedies. Attached to the request

is a proof of service on Respondent. Respondent has not opposed or otherwise responded to

Petitioner’s request.

A district court has discretion to stay a petition which it may validly consider on the merits.

Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1534, 2005 WL 711587 (2005); Calderon v. United

States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9 Cir. 1998); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d th

1268, 1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). However, the Supreme Court recently

held that this discretion is circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (AEDPA). Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1534. In light of AEDPA’s objectives, “stay and abeyance [is]

Case 1:04-cv-05217-OWW -WMW Document 51 Filed 09/19/06 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

available only in limited circumstances” and “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

1535. Even if Petitioner were to demonstrate good cause for that failure, “the district court would

abuse its discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.”

Id.

Unfortunately, Rhines does not discuss what circumstances would constitute “good cause” for

a petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims in state court before initiating his federal habeas corpus

proceeding. In the present case, Petitioner’s counsel provides a declaration stating that he believes

that Petitioner, while acting in pro se, did not fully exhaust his claims, including a potential

ineffectiveness of counsel claim. This court is not prepared to find that this does not constitute good

cause. See Fatherly v. Postcode, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301 (9 Cir. 1993) (abused of discretion found th

when court denied stay to exhaust newly discovered claims). Further, Respondent has not opposed

Petitioner’s request for a stay.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for stay of the proceedings is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner

is HEREBY ORDERED to file a status report regarding the progress of his case in the California

Supreme Court thirty (30) days from the date of stay of these proceedings and every thirty days

thereafter. Further, Petitioner shall immediately inform his court whether his petition has been

resolved by the California Supreme Court. 

In light of this order granting Petitioner a stay, the court’s order of August 18 , 2006, requiring

Petitioner to file his second amended petition by September 18, 2006, is HEREBY VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05217-OWW -WMW Document 51 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2