Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03828/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03828-0/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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk 

 P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Ha828stay2 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOA QUANG HA, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

GAIL LEWIS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-3828 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME;

GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

PETITION; INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK 

(Docket No. 17)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 and a motion to stay the instant petition while he

returns to state court to exhausted additional claims relating to his underlying state

criminal conviction. On August 10, 2004, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to stay

without prejudice because it was unclear whether the claims set forth in the instant

petition were exhausted. On March 8, 2005, the Court granted Petitioner an extension of

time to respond to the Court’s order and denied Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

counsel and motion for copies without prejudice. Petitioner filed a second motion for an

extension of time, a motion for appointment of counsel, and a motion for reconsideration. 

The Court denied Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel and motion for

**E-filed 3/7/07**

Case 5:03-cv-03828-JF Document 19 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk 

 P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Ha828stay2 2

reconsideration. The Court granted Petitioner a further extension of time to respond to

the Court’s earlier order concerning exhaustion of his claims set forth in the instant

petition, and if appropriate, file a renewed motion to stay the instant petition. 

Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time and a response clarifying that

the claims in the instant petition are exhausted. Petitioner also renews his request to stay

the instant petition while he exhausts his additional claim with the California Supreme

Court. The Court concludes that Petitioner has shown good cause for such extension and 

will GRANT Petitioner’s motion for extension of time. The Court will GRANT

Petitioner’s motion to stay the instant petition as set forth below. 

DISCUSSION

The Court initially denied Petitioner’s motion to stay the petition without prejudice

because it was unclear whether Petitioner intended to return to state court to exhaust

additional claims not included in the instant petition, or whether the claims set forth in the

instant petition were not exhausted. On April 10, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for

extension of time to file a response. The Court concludes that Petitioner has shown good

cause for such extension. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (docket

no. 17-1) is GRANTED. 

 Petitioner filed a response explaining that all of the claims in the instant 

petition are exhausted. Petitioner renews his motion to stay the instant petition so that he

may exhaust his additional claim, regarding his competency to stand trial and the trial

court’s failure to hold a competency hearing, in the California Supreme Court. Petitioner

contends that a stay is appropriate because his competency claim is connected to his

exhausted claims, and based upon his ongoing mental illness, mental competency, and

lack of understanding of English, he has relied on the assistance of inmates to proceed

with his habeas petitions. See Pet’s Motion at 2. 

District courts have the authority to issue stays and AEDPA does not deprive them

of that authority. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). The district court’s

discretion to stay a mixed petition is circumscribed by AEDPA’s stated purposes of

Case 5:03-cv-03828-JF Document 19 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk 

 P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Ha828stay2 3

reducing delay in the execution of criminal sentences and encouraging petitioners to seek

relief in the state courts before filing their claims in federal court. Id. Because the use of

a stay and abeyance procedure has the potential to undermine these dual purposes of

AEDPA, its use is only appropriate where the district court has first determined that there

was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust the claims in state court and that the

claims are potentially meritorious. Id. Moreover, where granting a stay, the district court

must effectuate the timeliness concerns in AEDPA by placing “reasonable limits on a

petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Id. at 278. Prisoners who may run the risk of

having the federal statute of limitations expire while they are exhausting their state

remedies may avoid this predicament “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.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (citing Rhines,

544 U.S. at 277-78). 

Here, Petitioner’s proposed new claim is cognizable under § 2254 and is not

“plainly meritless.” Petitioner appears to show good cause for his failure to exhaust the

claim in state court based upon newly discovered evidence and his allegation of

ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, the Court notes that Respondent has yet

to file an answer to the petition and Petitioner’s state habeas petition addressing this claim

is now pending in the state supreme court. Thus, Petitioner does not appear to be

intentionally delaying this action. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to stay the instant

petition to allow him to exhaust his additional claim (docket no. 17-2) is GRANTED. 

This action is hereby STAYED until thirty days after the California Supreme Court’s

final decision on petitioner’s additional claim.

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (docket no. 17-1) is GRANTED. 

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay the instant petition (docket no. 17-2) is 

GRANTED, and the above-titled action is hereby STAYED until thirty days after the

California Supreme Court’s final decision on Petitioner’s additional claim.

Case 5:03-cv-03828-JF Document 19 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 5
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk 

 P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Ha828stay2 4

3. Once the California Supreme Court has issued a decision on Petitioner’s 

additional claim, and if he has not obtained relief in state court, Petitioner shall promptly

notify the Court within thirty days of the California Supreme Court’s decision. 

4. Once the California Supreme Court has issued a decision, Petitioner may 

file an amended petition containing the newly exhausted claim and his exhausted claims

within thirty days. If Petitioner files an amended petition, he must include the caption

and civil case number used in this order (No. C 03-3828 JF (PR)) and the words

“AMENDED PETITION” on the first page. Petitioner may not incorporate material from

his earlier petition by reference, therefore he must include all supporting documentation,

such as exhibits, with the amended petition. Petitioner’s amended petition shall include

the exhausted claims in the instant petition, if Petitioner intends to pursue those claims,

along with the additional newly exhausted claim.

5. The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay 

of this action. This has no legal effect; it is purely a statistical procedure. When

Petitioner informs the Court that exhaustion has been completed the case will be

administratively re-opened. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

3/7/07

Case 5:03-cv-03828-JF Document 19 Filed 03/07/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk 

 P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Ha828stay2 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Hoa Quang Ha

K-90907

Pleasant Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 8503, CFB2-206U

Coalinga, CA 93210

Case 5:03-cv-03828-JF Document 19 Filed 03/07/07 Page 5 of 5