Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01313/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01313-1/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

 This is petitioner’s second motion for a stay and abeyance. The court denied 1

petitioner’s first motion, filed on June 29, 2005, as vague and conclusory. In that order petitioner

was advised that under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005), a petitioner moving for stay

and abeyance was required to show good cause for the failure to exhaust his claims prior to the

filing of the federal application, identify his unexhausted claims and demonstrate that each has

potential merit, describe the status of state court proceedings and demonstrate that he has acted

with diligence.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY T. WILLIAMS, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1313 LKK DAD P

vs.

STUART RYAN, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the court is petitioner’s motion for a stay and

abeyance. Respondents have filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion. 1

In his motion, petitioner indicates that he has presented one unexhausted claim

concerning his aiding and abetting conviction, and that his state habeas petition presenting this

claim was filed with the California Supreme Court on May 27, 2005. In their statement of

Case 2:05-cv-01313-JWS Document 12 Filed 08/16/06 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

 The complicated procedure of filing a premature, “protective” petition in federal court 2

along with a motion for stay and abeyance has been specifically endorsed by the Supreme Court

for habeas petitioners in California. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416-17 (2005); see

also Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149 n. 20 (9th Cir. 2005).

2

non-opposition, respondents acknowledge that petitioner filed his federal habeas petition

prematurely. In this regard respondents note that petitioner’s state habeas petition was filed with

the California Supreme Court more than three months before the one-year statute of limitations

for filing a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) had expired and the statute is tolled

while that petition is pending before the California Supreme Court. (Statement of Non-Opp’n at

2

1-2.)

In light of the above, the motion will be granted and petitioner will be ordered to

file status reports on his pending case before the California Supreme Court, and to promptly file

his amended federal petition following a decision from the California Supreme Court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s February 13, 2006 motion for a stay and abeyance is granted;

2. This action is stayed;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this case;

4. Petitioner shall file a status report on the first court day of every second month

beginning with September 1, 2006, concerning the status of his California Supreme Court habeas

proceedings; and

5. Petitioner shall file a motion to lift the stay and his amended petition, within

thirty days after petitioner has received a decision on his habeas petition with the California

Supreme Court; the status reports, motion, and amended petition shall reflect the case file

number assigned to this case. 

DATED: August 15, 2006.

DAD:4

will1313.msa2

Case 2:05-cv-01313-JWS Document 12 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2