Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00759/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00759-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 10-0759 RS (PR)

ORDER STAYING PETITION

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 5/21/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

THANH VAN DO,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, 

Respondent.

 /

No. C 10-0759 RS (PR)

ORDER STAYING PETITION

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se federal prisoner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The petition contains four claims, three of which, Petitioner asserts, were

exhausted in state court. Petitioner moves for a stay of the federal habeas proceedings

(Docket No. 8) until he has exhausted his fourth claim — that the trial court abused its

discretion in violation of petitioner’s due process rights. 

A district court may stay a mixed habeas petition, i.e., a petition containing both

exhausted and unexhausted claims, to allow the petitioner to exhaust state court remedies as

to those claims that have not yet been presented to the state’s highest court. See Rhines v.

Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277–78 (2005). In Rhines, the Supreme Court discussed the

stay-and-abeyance procedure, explaining that a stay and abeyance “is only appropriate when

Case 3:10-cv-00759-RS Document 9 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 10-0759 RS (PR)

2 ORDER STAYING PETITION

the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his

claims first in state court,” the claims are not meritless, and there are no intentionally dilatory

litigation tactics by the petitioner. Id. If the stay is granted, the petitioner does not have to

worry that his newly-exhausted claims will be barred by the statute of limitations because

those claims remain pending in federal court. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1139, 1140. (9th

Cir. 2009).

By contrast, where a petitioner deletes his unexhausted claims and seeks a stay of a

fully-exhausted petition while he returns to state court to exhaust the unexhausted claims, no

showing of good cause is required to stay the petition. Id. Once the claims are exhausted,

however, the petitioner must amend his petition to add the newly-exhausted claims;

importantly, such amendment must take place within the one-year statute of limitation set

forth at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), or the newly-exhausted claims will be dismissed as untimely. 

Id. at 1140–41.

Petitioner having provided sufficient grounds for Rhines stay, the motion is

GRANTED. Accordingly, petitioner does not have to worry that his newly-exhausted claim

will be barred by the statute of limitations because that claim remains pending in federal

court. See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1139, 1140. (9th Cir. 2009). The above-titled

action is hereby STAYED until petitioner exhausts the unexhausted claim and, provided

petitioner, within thirty (30) days of exhausting said claim, moves to reopen this action and

lift the stay, for such additional period of time and until the Court thereafter orders the stay

lifted.

The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of 

this action.

The order terminates Docket No. 8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00759-RS Document 9 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 2