Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02089/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02089-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUANE HOLLOWAY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2089 FCD EFB P

vs. DEATH PENALTY CASE

ROBERT WONG, Acting Warden, ORDER

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter came on for hearing on

petitioner’s motion to stay and hold in abeyance proceedings on his federal habeas petition

pending resolution of state court proceedings. Harry Simon, Federal Public Defender, and Mark

D. Greenberg appeared as counsel for petitioner. Barton Bowers, Deputy Attorney General,

appeared as counsel for respondent. The court heard argument from both parties. 

Counsel for petitioner argues that because federal funding made possible a more

thorough investigation, leading to additional claims that petitioner now seeks leave to exhaust in

state court, a second state habeas has been filed raising claims not previously litigated in state

court. Petitioner also argued that state habeas counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing

to properly construe the law as to one of petitioner’s potentially meritorious claims. Therefore,

Case 2:05-cv-02089-DJC-JDP Document 36 Filed 11/14/06 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

2

an ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel claim is being presented to the state court in this

recently filed petition.

Counsel for respondent argued that petitioner did not state with any particularity

how the disparity between state and federal investigative funding was inadequate, and that

petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was based on very general allegations. 

While respondent’s argument is not without some merit, strong interests of

comity and federalism dictate that state courts must have the first opportunity to decide a

petitioner’s claims. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). California’s indeterminate timeliness

rule obscures the nexus between the statutes of limitation in state and federal habeas

proceedings. The issue whether petitioner’s second state habeas petition is timely filed is a

matter for the state court to decide. Therefore, the state court will have the first opportunity to

pass upon the claims contained therein. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s September 29, 2006, motion to stay and hold in abeyance the

petition filed in this case pending resolution of state court proceedings is granted. 

2. Petitioner shall notify the court and respondents forthwith upon completion of

the state proceedings.

3. If the state proceedings have not concluded within six months of the date this

order is signed, petitioner shall file and serve a written status report. 

DATED: November 13, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02089-DJC-JDP Document 36 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 2