Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01290/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01290-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERBERT JAMES CODDINGTON,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-01-1290 MCE GGH P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, DEATH PENALTY CASE

Respondent. ORDER

___________________________________/

This case was stayed on November 20, 2002, for purposes of exhausting

unexhausted claims. On May 27, 2005, petitioner filed an amended petition in this court. The

undersigned, believing that exhaustion had been completed, set a scheduling conference. The

parties now inform the court (filing of June 17, 2005) that exhaustion has not been completed,

but rather, because the Supreme Court has authorized the staying of a mixed petition (contrary to

the previous practice in the Ninth Circuit of staying only petitioner with exhausted claims). See

Rhines v. Weber, __U.S.__, 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005). The precise underlying tactical reason for

filing the amended unexhausted petition remains unclear because nothing in Rhines precluded or

invalidated the previous Ninth Circuit practice of staying petitions with exhausted claims only. 

That is, there was no mandate issued by the Supreme Court to arouse this stayed case.

\\\\\

Case 2:01-cv-01290-KJM-CKD Document 64 Filed 06/23/05 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

2

Moreover, petitioner’s premature filing raises procedural issues. A stayed case is

one that does not permit filings outside the terms of the stay order. Parties cannot awake, and

then put to sleep, cases at their will. Awakening a case outside the terms of a stay order requires

a court order. Secondly, Rhines held that the stay of a mixed petition was not automatic, as

previous Ninth Circuit practice had effectively held, and as petitioner urged upon the district

judge in this case. Petitioner now has to show good cause for including unexhausted claims in

the petition. By unilaterally filing an amended petition with unexhausted claims, and then

requesting that the court make this filing subject to its previous, “automatic” stay, petitioner

wants the benefit of the previous “automatic” stay without the burden of demonstrating the

present requirement of good cause. 

However, petitioner represents that respondent joins in the request to vacate the

scheduling order and place this case in dormancy once again. The court accepts this

representation. Respondent has therefore waived any “good cause” objection to the newly stated

unexhausted claims that it might otherwise have possessed.

Accordingly, the undersigned vacates the scheduling order issued June 10, 2005;

the case shall remain stayed pursuant to the previous order of the district judge. The amended

petition will be considered filed as of the actual date of filing.

DATED: 6/22/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:gh:035

codd1290.ord

Case 2:01-cv-01290-KJM-CKD Document 64 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2