Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00938/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00938-2/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

KEITH N. JOSEPH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0938 FCD DAD P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

corpus. Petitioner claims that the trial court erred when it denied the defense motion to suppress

evidence. By order filed June 20, 2005, the court directed respondents to file a response to the

petition. Pursuant to an extension of time granted on July 22, 2005, respondents filed an answer

on August 18, 2005, and lodged the state court transcripts on August 25, 2005. Before the court

is petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings to exhaust state remedies on additional claims.

Petitioner’s motion does not include a proof of service showing that the motion

was served on respondents’ counsel. Petitioner describes the abeyance procedure as available to

him pursuant to well established Ninth Circuit authority. He states that “several claims

surrounding the conviction” are pending in state court and that those claims are “directly related

to the petition before the court.” Petitioner does not identify his unexhausted claims nor indicate

Case 2:05-cv-00938-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 10/03/05 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

the court in which the claims were pending when he filed his motion to stay. In a supporting

declaration, petitioner states that he learned about the abeyance procedure, mixed petitions, and

abuse of the writ doctrine from a knowledgeable inmate on July 4, 2005, and that his motion was

prepared by that inmate.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed the district court’s discretion to stay a

federal habeas proceeding to allow the petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state court

where there is good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust all claims in state court before

filing a federal habeas petition. Rhines v. Weber, U.S. , 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1534-35

(2005). See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000) (authorizing district courts to

stay fully exhausted federal petitions pending exhaustion of other claims); Calderon v. United

States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing the district court’s

authority to allow a petitioner to amend a mixed petition to delete unexhausted claims and hold

the fully exhausted petition in abeyance). The Supreme Court cautioned, however, that “stay and

abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances” and that a stay “is only appropriate

when the district court determines there is good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his

claims first in state court.” 125 S. Ct. at 1535. Even if a petitioner shows good cause, the district

court should not grant a stay if the claims are plainly meritless. Id. Finally, federal proceedings

may not be stayed indefinitely, and reasonable time limits must be imposed on a petitioner’s

return to state court to exhaust additional claims. Id.

Petitioner’s pending motion is vague and conclusory. The court is unable to

determine whether petitioner had good cause for failing to exhaust all claims before filing this

action, whether petitioner’s unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and whether

petitioner has acted with diligence. See Taylor, 134 F.3d at 987 nn. 8 & 11 (failure to make a

showing of diligence in pursuing additional claims may foreclose a stay). For these reasons,

petitioner’s motion will be denied without prejudice to the filing of a new motion.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00938-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 10/03/05 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

Petitioner will be granted thirty days to file a new motion to stay proceedings. 

The motion submitted for filing must include a proof of service showing that a copy of the

motion was served on respondents’ counsel. The motion must (1) show good cause for

petitioner’s failure to exhaust all claims prior to filing this action, (2) identify petitioner’s

unexhausted claims and demonstrate that each is potentially meritorious, (3) describe the status

of state court proceedings on the unexhausted claims, and (4) demonstrate that petitioner has

acted with diligence in pursuing additional claims. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s July 25, 2005 motion to stay is denied without prejudice;

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days to file and serve a new motion to stay; the

motion must make the showing described in this order and must include a proof of service

showing the date on which a true and exact copy of the motion was placed in the mail to

respondents’ counsel;

3. Respondents’ opposition or statement of non-opposition to petitioner’s new

motion shall be filed and served within twenty days after petitioner’s motion is placed in the mail

to respondents’ counsel;

4. Petitioner’s reply to any opposition shall be filed and served within twenty

days after the opposition is served; and

5. The current deadline for the filing of petitioner’s traverse to respondents’

answer is vacated.

DATED: September 30, 2005.

DAD:13

jose0938.mts

Case 2:05-cv-00938-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 10/03/05 Page 3 of 3