Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00122-1/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)

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMIEN WAFFORD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:12-cv-0122 MJS HC 

ORDER GRANTING STAY OF PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 5.) 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Court on January

10, 2012. On August 27, 2012, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition

should be stayed. Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause on September 10,

2012. In the response, Petitioner's counsel represented that if the matter were stayed he was

prepared to file state habeas petitions with the California Court of Appeals and California

Supreme Court to exhaust Petitioner's state remedies with regard to his third and fourth claims

of relief. 

-1-

Case 1:12-cv-00122-LJO-MJS Document 11 Filed 09/18/12 Page 1 of 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

Based on Petitioner's Counsel's representations that he is prepared to and will file state

habeas petitions to exhaust Petitioner's claims, Petitioner has provided good cause to be

granted a stay. As Petitioner may be able to exhaust his claims and subsequently add them

to the petition through amendment, the Court will stay the proceedings under Kelly v. Small,

315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court declines at this time to decide if the claims, once

exhausted, can properly be added to the federal petition within AEDPA's one year limitation

period. However, after Petitioner amends his petition to add any newly exhausted claims,

Respondent will be given an opportunity to challenge the timeliness of the claims asserted in

the amended petition.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) Petitioner's request to stay be granted in that the unexhausted claims in the original

petition (claims three and four) be stricken pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir.

2002) and King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009), and the instant action, with only claims

one and two remaining, be administratively stayed pursuant to Kelly and King;

2) Petitioner be directed to file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days of the California

Supreme Court issuing a final order resolving Petitioner's unexhausted claims; and 

3) Petitioner be directed to file an amended habeas petition containing all exhausted

claims with his motion to lift the stay.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with this Order will result in the Court's

vacating the stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-00122-LJO-MJS Document 11 Filed 09/18/12 Page 2 of 2