Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_95-cv-05108/USCOURTS-caed-1_95-cv-05108-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD AVERY McPETERS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

RON DAVIS, Warden Of San Quentin State

Prison,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1:95-cv-05108-DAD-SAB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION 

TO HOLD PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE

(Doc. No. 308)

ORDER VACATING SCHEDULED 

HEARINGS AND DEADLINES 

(Doc. No. 307)

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE 

STATE EXHAUSTION STATUS REPORTS

Before the court is the unopposed motion brought by counsel on behalf of petitioner 

Ronald Avery McPeters, to hold these proceedings in abeyance while he exhausts claim one 

(alleging his incompetency to be executed under Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)), 

claim two (alleging entitlement to relief under California Penal Code § 1473(e)(1) due to the 

alleged introduction of false blood and toxicology evidence at the guilt phase of his trial), and 

claim three (alleging entitlement to relief under California Penal Code § 1473(e)(1) due to the 

admission of false expert opinion at the penalty phase of his trial) included in his state petition 

for writ of habeas corpus filed in the California Supreme Court on June 5, 2015 (California 

Supreme Court Case No. S226918). 

/////

Case 1:95-cv-05108-DAD-SAB Document 309 Filed 05/19/16 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

27

28

2

 Petitioner avers that on April 28, 2016, counsel for respondent Warden Ron Davis, was 

informed of the fact and substance of the motion for stay and stated her non-opposition to it. 

The court finds the instant motion for abeyance is amenable to decision without a 

hearing. 

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted in Fresno County of first degree murder during a robbery and 

sentenced to death on May 7, 1986. His conviction was affirmed by the California Supreme 

Court on automatic appeal on July 13, 1992, and rehearing was denied by that court on 

September 23, 1992. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari on April 

19, 1993. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court 

which was summarily denied on March 22, 1994. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari 

from the habeas denial on October 3, 1994. 

Petitioner initiated these federal proceedings on February 13, 1995. The federal habeas 

petition was filed on April 22, 1996. On October 8, 2004, the court granted a limited evidentiary 

hearing and record expansion as to petitioner’s claims 4, 6, 15A, 16, 21, and 22 which relate to 

mental state defenses, mental state mitigation and substantive incompetency. The court also held

in reserve for later decision record based claims 8, 11, 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34 and 35 and 

denied federal habeas relief as to petitioner’s remaining claims.

This action was stayed by court order on September 18, 2006, pursuant to the decision in 

Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2003), due to petitioner’s incompetence. 

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ryan v. Gonzales, ___U.S.___, 133 S. Ct. 696 

(2013), the court reinstituted these proceedings and scheduled the evidentiary hearing once 

again. On March 18, 2016, the court denied without prejudice the parties’ joint request to vacate 

that evidentiary hearing and instead scheduled an October 3, 2016 status conference and a 

January 18, 2017 continued evidentiary hearing as well as set related deadlines. 

II. DISCUSSION AND ORDER

Petitioner now seeks an order holding these proceedings in abeyance under the decision 

in Rhines v. Weber, which allows a district court to issue a stay and hold in abeyance a mixed 

Case 1:95-cv-05108-DAD-SAB Document 309 Filed 05/19/16 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

27

28

3

federal habeas petition if the following conditions are met: (1) “the petitioner has good cause for 

his failure to exhaust,” (2) “his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious,” and (3) “there is 

no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” 544 U.S.

269, 277-78 (2005). The Supreme Court has made clear that this option “should be available 

only in limited circumstances.” Id. at 277. Moreover, in the context of this pre-AEDPA action 

there may be question as to the extent to which the decision in Rhines applies and if it does 

whether petitioner has demonstrated that the underlying April 22, 1996 petition is a mixed

petition, i.e., includes the noted unexhausted state claims. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 273.

The court need not, however, consider application of the three Rhines factors in this 

context because petitioner’s unopposed motion does demonstrate at this time good cause to 

vacate all previously scheduled hearings and deadlines in this action. See Rules Governing § 

2254 Cases, Rules 8 & 12, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254; Local Rule 191.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated:

1. Petitioner’s unopposed motion to hold these proceedings in abeyance (Doc. No. 

308) is denied without prejudice, 

2. All scheduled hearings and deadlines (Doc. No. 307) are vacated, and 

3. Petitioner is directed to file a report of the status of state exhaustion proceedings 

quarterly beginning October 1, 2016, and to file a report of claim disposition 

within fifteen (15) days of the California Supreme Court’s decision thereon.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:95-cv-05108-DAD-SAB Document 309 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 3