Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00481/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00481-2/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL SAPIEN LOPEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-00481-REC-TAG HC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

ABEYANCE AND STAY OF

PROCEEDINGS ON PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

(Doc. 12)

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO FILE

STATUS REPORTS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On April 11, 2005, Petitioner filed this federal habeas petition, including eight grounds for

relief that challenge his convictions for multiple violations of California’s Penal Code and Health 

& Safety Code, as well as the resulting sentence of 201 years, eight months. (Doc. 1). On August

17, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant motion for an abeyance, requesting that this Court stay

proceedings on the petition to permit Petitioner to exhaust a “newly discovered” claim for ineffective

assistance of counsel in state court. (Doc. 12). A cursory review of the California Supreme Court’s

docketing information indicates that Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in that court on August

19, 2005 in case number S136540. 

DISCUSSION

Traditionally, a district court has had the discretion to stay a petition which it may validly

consider on the merits. Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-988 (9th

Cir. 1998); Greenawalt v. Stewar7, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1002

Case 1:05-cv-00481-LJO -TAG Document 13 Filed 12/29/05 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

1The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1244(d).

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

(1997). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that Taylor in no way granted “district courts carte

blanche to stay even fully exhausted habeas petitions.” Taylor, 134 F.3d at 988 n. 11. Granting a

stay is appropriate where there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to delay or harass and in

order to avoid piecemeal litigation. Id. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that it is proper

for a district court, in its discretion, to hold a petition containing only exhausted claims in abeyance

in order to permit the petitioner to return to state court to exhaust his state remedies. Kelly v. Small,

315 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2004); Ford v. Hubbard, 305 F.3d 875, 882-883 (9th Cir. 2002); James

v. Pliler, 269 F.3d 1124, 1126-1127 (9th Cir. 2002); Taylor, 134 F.3d 981. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, until recently, federal case law continued to require that the

Court dismiss “mixed” petitions containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509 (1982). However, on March 30, 2005, the United States Supreme Court decided

Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005). Recognizing that “[a]s a result of the interplay between

AEDPA’s 1-year statute of limitations1 and Lundy’s dismissal requirement, petitioners who come to

federal court with ‘mixed’ petitions run the risk of forever losing their opportunity for any federal

review of their unexhausted claims,” the Supreme Court held that federal courts may now issue “stay

and abey” orders under appropriate circumstances to permit petitioners to exhaust unexhausted

claims before proceeding with their federal petitions. Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1533-1534. In so

holding, the Supreme Court noted that, while the procedure should be “available only in limited

circumstances,” it “likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay and to

dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted

claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in

intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1535. When a petitioner has met these

requirements, his interest in obtaining federal review of his claims outweighs the competing interests

in finality and speedy resolution of federal petitions. Id. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00481-LJO -TAG Document 13 Filed 12/29/05 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

2The Court is aware that the one-year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)

is a potential issue in this case. Indeed, Petitioner has filed a “Notice and Explanation of Late Filing”

(Doc. 3), as well as a motion requesting equitable tolling to bring the Petition within the one-year filing

deadline. (Doc. 4). For purposes of ruling on this motion for stay of proceedings, the Court takes no

position regarding whether Petitioner has complied with the one-year limitations period or whether

equitable tolling is appropriate in this case. The record presently contains insufficient information for

the Court to make such determinations. However, the Court will permit Petitioner to exhaust his state

court remedies and to amend the Petition to include his newly exhausted claim before requiring

Respondent to file a reply. In lieu of her reply, Respondent will have the opportunity to raise the statute

of limitations as a defense and to supply the Court with documentation supporting such a defense. At

that point, the Court will be in a position to make a determination regarding whether the Petition is in

fact timely.

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 3

Here, Petitioner has filed a petition that appears to contain only exhausted claims. However,

Petitioner is concurrently pursuing state habeas remedies in an effort to exhaust an additional claim

of ineffective assistance of counsel which he hopes to include in an amended petition in this Court. 

(Doc. 12). As mentioned above, it appears that Petitioner’s habeas petition in the California

Supreme Court is pending. Respondent has, as yet, not been ordered to file a response.

From the foregoing, it appears to the Court that Petitioner is attempting to exhaust his “newly

discovered” claim in a timely and expeditious manner and there is no indication that, in seeking this

stay and abeyance, Petitioner intends to harass or delay the proceedings, nor does it appear that

Petitioner is engaging in dilatory conduct. Although the Court is not prepared at this time to make

an assessment of the merits of the claims currently contained within the Petition, a preliminary

review of the Petition indicates that Petitioner has alleged violations of federal constitutional law

that, if established, would entitle Petitioner to habeas relief. Moreover, it appears that Petitioner is

proceeding in good faith and that no prejudice would inure to the parties by granting the requested

stay.2

Therefore, good cause having been presented and good cause appearing therefore, the Court

will grant Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the proceedings and will hold the petition for writ of

habeas corpus in abeyance pending exhaustion of Petitioner’s state remedies. 

However, the Court will not indefinitely hold the petition in abeyance. See Taylor, 134 F.3d

at 988 n. 11. No later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this Order Petitioner must

inform the Court of the status of the habeas proceedings in state court, including the dates his cases

Case 1:05-cv-00481-LJO -TAG Document 13 Filed 12/29/05 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

3The filing should be entitled “Status Report.”

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 4

were filed, the case numbers, and any outcomes.3 Further, Petitioner must proceed diligently to

pursue his state court remedies, and every sixty (60) days after the filing of the initial status report

Petitioner must file a new status report regarding the status of his state court habeas corpus

proceedings. Following final action by the state courts, Petitioner will be allowed thirty (30) days

within which to file a motion for leave to amend the instant petition to include the newly exhausted

claims. Failure to comply with these instructions and time allowances will result in this Court

vacating the stay nunc pro tunc to the date of this order. Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1071.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to stay the instant proceedings on his habeas petition (Doc. 12), is

GRANTED;

2. Proceedings on the instant petition are STAYED pending exhaustion of Petitioner’s state

remedies;

3. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a status report within thirty (30) days of the date of service

of this order, advising the Court of the status of all pending habeas proceedings filed in state

court, the dates when such cases were filed, and any outcomes;

4. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a new status report every sixty (60) days after the filing of

the initial status report; and

5. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days following the final order of the state courts

within which to file a motion for leave to amend the petition to include the newly exhausted

claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 29, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00481-LJO -TAG Document 13 Filed 12/29/05 Page 4 of 4