Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02225/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02225-0/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

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

1 05-CV-2225 L (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES EARL FELDER, Civil

No.

05-CV-2225 L (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER RE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

HOLD PROCEEDINGS ON PETITION IN

ABEYANCE

[Doc. # 24]

v.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

This is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 3,

2006 Respondent Roderick Q. Hickman filed his Answer to the First Amended Petition. On August 16,

2006 Petitioner filed a Motion to Hold Proceedings on Petition in Abeyance. 

The Court hereby notifies Petitioner of the requirements for demonstrating that the stay and

abeyance procedure is appropriate in this case. In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) the Supreme

Court held that District Courts have limited discretion to hold in abeyance a mixed habeas petition, that

is, one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, in order to permit a petitioner to return to

state court to exhaust additional claims while the federal proceedings are stayed. Rhines, 544 U.S. at

277. The Rhines Court held that “a stay and abeyance ‘should be available only in limited

circumstances,’ and is appropriate only when the district court determines that there was ‘good cause’

for the failure to exhaust.” Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Rhines, 544 U.S.

at 277). The Court in Jackson noted that the Rhines holding applies to stays of mixed petitions, but that

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 25 Filed 09/19/06 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

27

28

2 05-CV-2225 L (CAB)

Rhines did not comment on the validity of the withdraw and abeyance procedure approved of in

Calderon v. United States District Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 1998) and Kelly v. Small, 315

F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), where unexhausted claims are withdrawn from a mixed petition and the

resultant fully-exhausted petition is held in abeyance while petitioner returns to state court to exhaust the

unexhausted claims. Jackson, 425 F.3d at 661. Because Jackson involved a mixed petition, the Court

held that Rhines directly controlled, and “left for another day the question of whether the stay standard

announced by the Supreme Court in Rhines applies to our three-step stay-and-abeyance procedure.” Id.

Irrespective of whether Petitioner’s motion for stay is subject to the restrictions placed on this

Court’s discretion to issue a stay as set forth in Rhines, or is subject to the Ninth Circuit’s withdraw and

abeyance procedure, Petitioner must satisfy the criteria for issuance of a stay. Under either procedure he

must demonstrate there are arguably meritorious claims which he wishes to return to state court

to exhaust and that he is diligently pursuing his state court remedies with respect to those claims. 

Jackson, 425 F.3d at 661; Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000); Taylor, 134 F.3d at

987; see also Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070. Petitioner shall address these concerns in his brief in support of

his Motion. In addition, Petitioner should set forth facts in an attempt to demonstrate good cause for his

failure to timely exhaust the state court remedies with respect to his unexhausted claims.

Accordingly, Petitioner shall file a brief in support of his Motion to Hold Proceedings on Petition

in Abeyance addressing the above requirements no later than October 16, 2006. Respondent shall file

an opposition to the motion no later than October 30, 2006. Petitioner shall file his reply, if any, to the

Respondent’s opposition no later than November 6, 2006. In the event Petitioner’s motion is denied,

the Court will set a new date for the filing of his Traverse. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2006

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 25 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2