Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04387/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04387-0/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

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04387-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY AND ABEY PETITION FOR 

HABEAS CORPUS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DONALD GUS ALLEN,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 5:15-cv-04387-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO STAY AND ABEY 

PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

Re: Dkt. No. 7

Petitioner Donald Gus Allen (“Petitioner”) is presently serving a term of 157 years to life 

after being convicted of several crimes in Del Norte Superior Court. He is currently incarcerated 

at Mule Creek State Prison. Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (the “Petition”) in this court on September 24, 2015. He now moves for a “stay and abey” 

order under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), or for an order staying the Petition and 

dismissing unexhausted claims under King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). This motion is 

unopposed. 

Having carefully reviewed the record and considered the written and oral arguments of 

counsel, the court finds, concludes and orders as follows:

1. “Before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must 

exhaust his remedies in state court.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To meet 

this requirement, the prisoner must “fairly present” the factual and legal bases for each claim to 

the state’s highest court. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 

F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The rule of exhaustion requires that a habeas petitioner ‘fairly 

Case 5:15-cv-04387-EJD Document 8 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04387-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY AND ABEY PETITION FOR 

HABEAS CORPUS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

present’ his federal claims to each appropriate state court.”). 

2. Generally, a federal district court must dismiss a habeas petition containing any 

claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted - a so-called “mixed petition.” See Rose 

v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). Alternatively, the district court may deny a meritless petition 

that includes unexhausted claims (28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2)), or may stay a mixed petition to allow 

for complete exhaustion. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277.

3. The district court’s discretion to stay a mixed petition is circumscribed by the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), the purpose of which 

legislation is to reduce delay in the execution of criminal sentences and encourage petitioners to 

seek relief in the state courts before filing their claims in federal court. Id. at 275-76. Because a 

stay has the potential to undermine these dual purposes of AEDPA, its application is only 

appropriate where the district court has first determined there was good cause for the petitioner’s 

failure to exhaust the claims in state court and that the claims are potentially meritorious. Id. at 

277.

4. Petitioner admits in the instant motion that the Petition is mixed; it contains 

exhausted and unexhausted claims. The latter category of claims is presently the subject of a 

habeas petition filed in Del Norte Superior Court. 

5. “Under Rhines, a district court must stay a mixed petition only if: (1) the petitioner 

has ‘good cause’ for his failure to exhaust his claims in state court; (2) the unexhausted claims are 

potentially meritorious; and (3) there is no indication that the petitioner intentionally engaged in 

dilatory litigation tactics.” Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1023. 

6. “[G]ood cause does not require a showing of ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” 

Blake v. Baker, 745 F.3d 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2014). Instead, its existence “turns on whether the 

petitioner can set forth a reasonable excuse, supported by sufficient evidence, to justify” a failure 

to exhaust. Id. at 982. Consequently, “unspecific, unsupported excuses for failing to exhaust -

such as unjustified ignorance,” cannot satisfy the good cause requirement. Id. at 981.

Case 5:15-cv-04387-EJD Document 8 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04387-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY AND ABEY PETITION FOR 

HABEAS CORPUS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

7. Petitioner argues that good cause exists because, in this context, he could not have 

known about the unexhausted claims until habeas counsel was appointed to investigate any 

potential relief. Because the unexhausted claims involve the ineffective assistance of his trial and 

appellate attorneys, the court agrees with Petitioner. 

8. As to the second element of the Rhines test, the court observes that “plainly 

meritless” claims do not justify a stay, even when a petitioner has shown good cause. Rhines, 544 

U.S. at 277. But here, the court cannot say that Petitioner’s unexhausted claims are “plainly 

meritless” in light of the arguments made in the Petition. In this case, such a determination can 

only be accomplished after the court receives a response to the Petition on its merits.

9. As to the third element, nothing in the record suggest Petitioner has engaged in 

“dilatory litigation tactics.”

Because Petitioner has satisfied his burden under Rhines, the request to stay the case and 

hold the Petition is abeyance is GRANTED, and the court need not address Petitioner’s request for 

alternative relief. This case is STAYED pending final resolution of all proceedings related to the 

habeas corpus petition filed in Del Norte Superior Court on September 16, 2015, including any 

appeals or petitions for review. The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this file.

So that the ongoing appropriateness of the stay can be monitored, Petitioner shall submit a 

brief report which describes the status of the state habeas proceedings on June 3, 2016, and 

continuing every four months thereafter. Furthermore, within 10 days of the final resolution of the 

state proceedings, Petitioner shall file a notice informing the court of such development and 

request that this matter be reopened.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04387-EJD Document 8 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 3