Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01287/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01287-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR BERNARD TRILLO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1287 FCD GGH P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 12, 2006, petitioner filed the original petition and

a motion to stay proceedings pending exhaustion of state court remedies. On November 12,

2006, respondent filed an opposition to petitioner’s motion. For the following reasons, the court

recommends that petitioner’s motion be granted and this action be administratively stayed.

District courts have the authority to stay a federal habeas petition. Rhines v.

Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). A stay is appropriate where the

district court determines good cause existed for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims in

state court, and that such claims are potentially meritorious. Id. In Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544

U.S. 408, 416, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 (2005) the Supreme Court approved the filing of “protective

petitions”:

Case 2:06-cv-01287-JKS Document 8 Filed 12/08/06 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

Finally, petitioner challenges the fairness of our interpretation. He claims that a

“petitioner trying in good faith to exhaust state remedies may litigate in state court

for years only to find out at the end that he was never ‘properly filed,’” and thus

that his federal habeas petition is time barred. Brief for Petitioner 30. A prisoner

seeking state postconviction relief might avoid this predicament, however, 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. See

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1531, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). 

A petitioner’s reasonable confusion about whether a state filing would be timely

will ordinarily constitute “good cause” for him to file in federal court. Ibid. 

On January 7, 2005, petitioner filed a petition for review in the California

Supreme Court. On March 2, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied the petition. On

January 23, 2006, petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Sacramento County Superior

Court. On August 31, 2006, the Superior Court issued an order to show cause. That petition is

still pending.

Petitioner’s conviction became final 90 days after the California Supreme Court

denied his petition for review, i.e. on May 31, 2005. Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243 (9 Cir. th

2001). Absent statutory or equitable tolling, petitioner had one year from that date to file a

timely federal petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The time during which a properly filed state

habeas petition is pending tolls the limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Respondent states that petitioner used 237 days of his one year federal statute of

limitations before he filed his habeas petition in state court. Respondent contends that since the

state habeas matter is still pending, petitioner still has 128 days remaining to file a timely federal

petition. As a result, respondent argues, a stay is unnecessary. This argument is without merit

because petitioner’s federal petition is the type of “protective” petition referred to by the

Supreme Court in Pace, supra. 

Respondent further argues that no “protective” petition is necessary because the

Superior Court’s order to show cause demonstrates that the petition was timely and therefore

properly filed for purposes of tolling under 8 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Respondent suggests that under

these circumstances petitioner could not have “reasonable confusion” regarding whether the

Case 2:06-cv-01287-JKS Document 8 Filed 12/08/06 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

petition filed in the Superior Court was timely.

When petitioner filed his federal petition and motion to stay the show cause order

had not been issued. At that time petitioner’s confusion regarding whether the state petition

would be timely was reasonable. Moreover, neither this court nor respondent can guarantee that

the Superior Court will find the state petition timely. Nor can the court guarantee that the

California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court will find petitioner’s state petitions

timely. Petitioner’s confusion regarding whether his petition filed in Superior Court is timely is

reasonable.

Because there is no claim that petitioner’s claims are not meritorious and because

petitioner has shown good cause to support his request for a stay, the court recommends that his

motion be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s June 12, 2006,

motion to stay proceedings be granted and this action be administratively stayed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 12/8/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

tril1287.157

Case 2:06-cv-01287-JKS Document 8 Filed 12/08/06 Page 3 of 3