Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00154/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00154-3/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

TRINA RENEE SANDERS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0154 DFL DAD P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed a motion to hold

proceedings in abeyance until the California Supreme Court issues a decision on petitioner’s state

habeas petition filed December 15, 2006. Respondents have filed a statement of non-opposition

to petitioner’s motion. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the district court’s discretion to stay a

federal habeas proceeding to allow a 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. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005); 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). This discretion to issue a stay extends to mixed

Case 2:07-cv-00154-RHW-JPH Document 16 Filed 04/25/07 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

petitions. Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Rhines concluded that a district

court has discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner time to return to state court to

present unexhausted claims.”). The Court cautioned, however, that “stay and abeyance should be

available only in limited circumstances,” and “district courts should place reasonable time limits

on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Id. at 277-78. The Court noted that district courts

should not grant a stay if the petitioner has engaged in abusive litigation tactics or intentional

delay or if the unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Id. at 278.

In the present case, petitioner alleges that the petition before the California

Supreme Court “contains all of the unexhausted claims raised in this Court.” (Pet’r’s Mot. to

Hold Proceedings in Abeyance at 3). Petitioner claims that the unexhausted claims could not

have been exhausted sooner and maintains that her counsel, Mr. Covin, pursued the unexhausted

claims with reasonable diligence. Petitioner further claims that the delays in the habeas

investigation were beyond the control of Mr. Covin and petitioner. For example, Mr. Covin

attempted to reach petitioner’s trial attorney, but he was non-responsive for many months due to

a serious health problem. He eventually responded to Mr. Covin’s inquires and provided a

declaration in support of the unexhausted claims. (Pet’r’s Mot. to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance

at 2). In addition, Mr. Covin spent months writing and calling hospitals where petitioner

previously received mental health treatment. No medical records reflecting this treatment were

ever uncovered, so petitioner decided to pursue unexhausted claims for which she had supporting

evidence. (Pet’r’s Mot. to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance at 2-3). As a result, petitioner omitted

potential meritorious claims for ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate prior

hospitalizations. (Pet’r’s Mot. to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance at 3). Petitioner concludes that

she has demonstrated good cause under Rhines and these proceedings should be held in

abeyance. Good cause appearing, petitioner’s motion to hold proceedings in abeyance will be

granted.

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00154-RHW-JPH Document 16 Filed 04/25/07 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

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

1. Petitioner’s January 24, 2007 motion to hold proceedings in abeyance is

granted;

2. Petitioner is ordered to present all unexhausted claims to the California

Supreme Court in a further state habeas corpus petition to be filed within thirty days from the

date of this order, if all unexhausted claims were not included in the state habeas petition filed on

December 15, 2006;

3. This action is stayed and the Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively

close the case;

4. Petitioner is ordered to file and serve a status report in this case on the first

court day of each month; 

5. Petitioner is ordered to file and serve a motion to lift the stay of this action,

along with a proposed second amended petition containing only exhausted claims, within thirty

days after petitioner is served with the California Supreme Court’s order disposing of the state

exhaustion petition; and

6. The hearing on petitioner’s motion to hold proceedings in abeyance scheduled

for May 4, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 27 is vacated.

DATED: April 24, 2007.

DAD:9

sand0154.sty

Case 2:07-cv-00154-RHW-JPH Document 16 Filed 04/25/07 Page 3 of 3