Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00398/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00398-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS ALONSO VEGA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-398 GGH P

vs.

FRANCISCO JAQUEZ, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case is before the undersigned pursuant to

petitioner’s consent. Doc. #5. 

By Order on March 23, 2010, the court noted that petitioner’s petition consisted of

one exhausted claim and two unexhausted claims. Petitioner was given the option of filing a

motion to stay the action under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005) or the

procedure described in King v Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009) citing Kelly v. Small, 315

F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), or proceed on the exhausted claim only. On April 19, 2010, petitioner

filed a motion to stay that failed to address any of the options discussed by the court. Petitioner

has also filed a motion to appoint counsel.

\\\\\

Case 2:10-cv-00398-JAM-AC Document 9 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Petitioner’s motion discusses the law involved in staying a petition but does not

set forth any facts on why petitioner has not exhausted all his claims and simply states he wants a

stay. As plaintiff has not alleged any facts whatsoever in his motion, a stay pursuant to Rhines is

not appropriate.

The court will construe petitioner’s motion to be a request for a stay under

King/Kelly which the court will grant. The court cannot determine if petitioner has suitable time

to exhaust the remaining claims in state court, though petitioner has indicated that a state habeas

case is pending in San Joaquin County Superior Court.

In King, the Ninth Circuit held that in addition to the stay procedure authorized in

Rhines, district courts also have discretion to permit petitioners to follow the three-step stayand-abeyance procedure approved in Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 986 (9th

Cir. 1998) and Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Pursuant to the Kelly procedure,

(1) a petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays and

holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner the opportunity

to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) the petitioner later amends his

petition and re-attaches the newly-exhausted claims to the original petition. Kelly, 315 F.3d at

1070-71. The Kelly stay-and-abeyance procedure has no requirement of a good cause showing or

that the claims are potentially meritorious. However, no statute of limitations protection is

imparted by such a stay, nor are exhausted claim adjudicated during the pendency of such a stay.

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists

no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105

F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of

counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R.

Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice

would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

\\\\\ 

Case 2:10-cv-00398-JAM-AC Document 9 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s April 19, 2010, motion to stay is granted in that the unexhausted

claims in the original petition, claims two and three, are stricken without prejudice and this

action be administratively stayed pursuant to King/Kelly;

2. Petitioner shall inform the court within twenty-eight days of exhausting his

claims in state court.

3. Petitioner’s April 22, 2010, request for appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings

DATED: June 1, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH: AB

veg398.ord2

Case 2:10-cv-00398-JAM-AC Document 9 Filed 06/01/10 Page 3 of 3