Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03433/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03433-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP J. GREENE,

Petitioner,

 v.

TOM L. CAREY,

Respondent.

_____________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-3433 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

STAY HABEAS PETITION;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2 & 3)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has filed a motion to stay his petition

while he exhausts some of the claims contained therein. Additionally, he has applied for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis. 

BACKGROUND

In 2003, in Santa Clara County Superior Court, petitioner was convicted of one count of

violating California Penal Code § 273a(a), with related sentencing enhancements. He was

sentenced to seven years in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the

Supreme Court of California denied review. He has filed no habeas petitions in the state court

regarding said conviction or sentence. 

DISCUSSION

This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);

Case 3:05-cv-03433-MMC Document 4 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1Petitioner does not specify which of his claims are unexhausted.

2

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall "award the writ or issue an

order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-

76 (1977)). 

Petitioner claims that (1) his rights to due process and a speedy trial were violated; (2)

the prosecutor violated his right to due process by knowingly suppressing exculpatory

evidence; and (3) the prosecutor violated his right to due process by prosecuting him out of

vindictiveness. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable.

Petitioner has filed a motion to stay the petition because he has not exhausted “some”1

of these claims. District courts have the authority to issue stays, and AEDPA does not deprive

them of that authority. Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). A stay is appropriate

where the district court determines that good cause existed for the petitioner’s failure to

exhaust his claims in state court, and that such claims are potentially meritorious. Id.; see also

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 125 S. Ct. 1807, 1813-14 (2005) (noting prisoners may file 

“protective” petition in federal court and ask federal court to stay federal habeas proceedings

until state remedies exhausted). Here, petitioner explains that his claims were not exhausted

prior to his coming to federal court because his appellate counsel did not set forth the federal

basis for those claims on direct appeal. Good cause appearing, and as the claims in the petition

state cognizable bases for federal habeas relief, the request for a stay will be granted. 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the motion for a stay of the instant petition is GRANTED, and

the above-titled action is hereby STAYED until petitioner has exhausted all of the claims in the

petition. 

Case 3:05-cv-03433-MMC Document 4 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Petitioner is cautioned that if he wishes to have this Court consider his claims,

he must properly present those claims to the California Supreme Court within thirty

days of the date this order is filed, and thereafter, within thirty days of the California

Supreme Court’s decision, he must notify this Court that he wishes to reopen this

action.

The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of this action. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 28, 2005

 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03433-MMC Document 4 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 3