Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03551/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03551-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed: August 24, 2015*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHRISTIAN PEREZ,

Petitioner, v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIN, Warden, Pleasant 

Valley State Prison, Coalinga, California,

Respondent.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

 Real Party in Interest.

____________________________________/

No. 14-CV-03551 HRL

ORDER DENYING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

REQUEST STAY AND ABEYANCE 

TO PERMIT PETITIONER TO 

EXHAUST UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS

[Re: Docket No. 4]

Before the court is Petitioner’s Administrative Motion to Request Stay and Abeyance to 

Permit Petitioner to Exhaust Unexhausted Claims. For the reasons stated below, this motion is 

denied.

The petition at issue here contains one claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel. This 

claim was exhausted on direct appeal, but it was not exhausted by means of a state collateral relief 

petition. To obtain an evidentiary hearing in federal court, a petitioner must have sought an 

evidentiary hearing in state court on the issue, which can only be done in a state collateral relief 

petition. People v. Pope, 23 Cal. 3d 412, 426 (1979). Petitioner moves for an order staying the 

Case 3:14-cv-03551-VC Document 5 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

petition and holding it in abeyance under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), so that he may 

exhaust the evidentiary hearing possibilities of the existing ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

A federal court may only consider a petition for habeas corpus if the petitioner has first 

presented his claims to the state courts, thereby “exhausting” them. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(l)(A); Rose 

v. Lundv, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). Exhaustion of a habeas petitioner’s federal claims requires that 

the claims have been “fairly present[ed]” in each appropriate state court, including a state supreme 

court with powers of discretionary review. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). In California, 

this generally entails direct or collateral presentation to both the state courts of appeal and the state 

supreme court, though presentation to the state supreme court alone may suffice. Rieger v. 

Christensen, 789 F.2d 1425, 1427 (9th Cir. 1986); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir.

1996). In addition, a petitioner must “alert[] [the state] court to the federal nature of the claim.” 

Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29. 

In general, a court may not consider a “mixed” habeas petition that contains or seeks to 

present both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rose, 455 U.S. at 522. If a petitioner presents a 

mixed petition, the petitioner may seek to stay the exhausted claims while he pursues the 

unexhausted claims in state court. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278. Under Rhines, a district court has 

discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to return to state court to present the 

unexhausted claims. Id. at 276. This stay and abeyance is available only in limited circumstances, 

and only when: (1) there is “good cause” for the failure to exhaust; (2) the unexhausted claims are 

potentially meritorious; and (3) the petitioner did not intentionally engage in dilatory litigation 

tactics. Id. at 277–78. 

Here, Petitioner moves for an order staying the petition and holding it in abeyance under 

Rhines so that he may exhaust the evidentiary hearing possibilities of the existing ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim. A stay and abeyance under Rhines is available only in limited 

circumstances, and Petitioner has not shown that the required three factors are present. Specifically, 

Petitioner has not shown that there is “good cause” for his failure to exhaust, that the unexhausted 

claims are potentially meritorious, or that he did not intentionally engage in dilatory litigation 

tactics. Rather than address these three factors, Petitioner argues only that because the ineffective 

Case 3:14-cv-03551-VC Document 5 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

assistance claim was exhausted on direct appeal, the claim “relates back” because it is in fact the 

same claim. See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2009) (a petitioner may amend an 

exhausted claim in a pending federal corpus petition, even after the expiration of the limitations 

period, if the new claim “relates back” to previously exhausted claims). King, however, is 

inapplicable here. Petitioner does not seek to amend his pending claim with a new claim that 

“relates back” to the pending claim. Rather, Petitioner seeks to exhaust the possibility of an 

evidentiary hearing in state court for a claim that is already asserted in his petition. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Administrative Motion to Request Stay and Abeyance to Permit 

Petitioner to Exhaust Unexhausted Claims is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2015

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-03551-VC Document 5 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 3