Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04511/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04511-0/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)

---

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY CASE—No. C-07-04511 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 10/1/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAYMOND HOUSTON,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ,

Respondent.

No. C-07-04511 RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

CASE

[Re Docket No. 3]

Petitioner, having filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court on August 30,

2007, asks this court to hold the petition in abeyance pending the resolution of a co-pending habeas

petition in state court. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on seven separate grounds. Six of

his claims have been exhausted before the state court. One claim, his ineffective assistance of

counsel claim, has not yet been exhausted. Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the Superior

Court of Alameda County regarding his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on June 4, 2007,

which, according to petitioner, was three months prior to the expiration of the AEDPA statute of

limitations of September 4, 2007. The Superior Court judge issued an order directing the district

attorney to file an informal response by July 6, 2007. The district attorney has asked for and been

granted two extensions of time to file its informal response, which is now expected on or around

October 1, 2007. Concerned that the Superior Court may find petitioner's habeas petition to be

Case 5:07-cv-04511-RMW Document 4 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY CASE—No. C-07-04511 RMW

MAG 2

untimely, which may impact the tolling of the AEDPA statute of limitations, petitioner files the

instant motion to stay the case pending exhaustion of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

District courts have the authority to stay a mixed habeas petition with exhausted and

unexhausted claims and hold it in abeyance pending the exhaustion of the unexhausted claims. 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). That discretion is not unfettered, but, as the Supreme

Court has stated, "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." Id. Additionally, the Supreme Court has recommended that

"[a] prisoner seeking state postconviction relief might avoid [having a court find his petition timebarred] 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 276). 

Here, petitioner is asserting ineffective assistance of counsel as a grounds for a state habeas

petition after appealing his conviction. It appears that petitioner attempted to have this habeas

petition fully briefed in the trial court prior to the expiration of the AEDPA statute of limitations,

filing his writ in the Alameda County Superior Court on June 4, 2007. Although the district

attorney's response was originally due on July 6, 2007, that response date has been continued twice,

delaying petitioner's attempt to exhaust this claim. There is no reason for the court not to exercise

its discretion to stay and abey the present federal habeas proceedings until petitioner's state remedies

are exhausted. Petitioner is in the process of exhausting his ineffective assistance of counsel claim,

which appears to have some merit, and there is no indication that he has engaged in dilatory

litigation tactics. 

Accordingly, the court grants petitioner's request to hold the case in abeyance while he

exhausts his remaining claim in state court. Petitioner shall provide this court with status reports

Case 5:07-cv-04511-RMW Document 4 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY CASE—No. C-07-04511 RMW

MAG 3

every 60 days until the petition has been exhausted in state court. He will promptly notify the court

when the claim is exhausted. The court will thereafter consider whether an order to show cause

should issue regarding the petition before this court.

DATED: 9/28/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04511-RMW Document 4 Filed 10/01/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY CASE—No. C-07-04511 RMW

MAG 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Petitioner:

Marilee Marshall mmlegal@sbcglobal.net 

Jennifer Lynne Peabody jplegal@sbcglobal.net 

Counsel for Respondent:

No appearance

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 10/1/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-04511-RMW Document 4 Filed 10/01/07 Page 4 of 4