Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04376/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04376-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

MAURICE BOYETTE,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS,

Respondent.

Case No. 13-cv-04376-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S 

MOTION TO LIFT STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 53

INTRODUCTION

Respondent has filed a motion seeking to temporarily lift a stay entered on June 9, 2016 to 

permit petitioner to exhaust claims in state court. Respondent contends that petitioner has been 

dilatory in preparing his exhaustion petition and requests that petitioner be ordered to file the 

exhaustion petition within 30 days. Petitioner opposes respondent’s motion. For the reasons 

discussed below, respondent’s motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

In 1993, petitioner was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court of the first-degree 

murders of Gary Carter and Annette Devallier. On March 25, 1993, a jury sentenced him to death. 

The California Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction and death sentence. People v. 

Boyette, 29 Cal. 4th 381, 403 (2002), modified (Feb. 11, 2003), rehearing denied (Feb. 11, 2003). 

Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition on January 5, 2015. (ECF Doc. No. 23) On June 

9, 2016, his federal habeas proceedings were stayed pending the completion of exhaustion 

proceedings in state court. Petitioner was directed to file a report every 90 days to provide an 

update on the status of his exhaustion proceedings. In a status report filed on July 13, 2016, 

petitioner stated that he was developing issues for presentation in his exhaustion petition in 

accordance with the page limitation and other filing requirements set forth in In re Reno, 55 Cal. 

4th 428 (2012). 

Case 3:13-cv-04376-WHO Document 56 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

On August 26, 2016, respondent filed a motion requesting that petitioner’s stay be lifted and 

that he be ordered to file his exhaustion petition within 30 days as required by Rhines v. Weber, 544 

U.S. 269 (2005). Petitioner filed an opposition on September 9, 2016.

In a status report filed on October 12, 2016, petitioner states that his counsel are still 

awaiting appointment by the California Supreme Court to represent him in his state habeas 

proceedings, but expect to be able to file the exhaustion petition by November 15, 2016.

DISCUSSION

In Rhines, the United States Supreme Court stated:

Even where stay and abeyance is appropriate, the district court's 

discretion in structuring the stay is limited by the timeliness 

concerns reflected in AEDPA. A mixed petition should not be 

stayed indefinitely. Though, generally, a prisoner's “principal 

interest ... is in obtaining speedy federal relief on his claims,” Lundy, 

supra, at 520, 102 S.Ct. 1198 (plurality opinion), not all petitioners 

have an incentive to obtain federal relief as quickly as possible. In 

particular, capital petitioners might deliberately engage in dilatory 

tactics to prolong their incarceration and avoid execution of the 

sentence of death. Without time limits, petitioners could frustrate 

AEDPA's goal of finality by dragging out indefinitely their federal 

habeas review. Thus, district courts should place reasonable time 

limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and back. See, e.g.,Zarvela, 

254 F.3d, at 381 (“[District courts] should explicitly condition the 

stay on the prisoner's pursuing state court remedies within a brief 

interval, normally 30 days, after the stay is entered and returning to 

federal court within a similarly brief interval, normally 30 days after 

state court exhaustion is completed”).

Id. at 277-78. Although Rhines did not establish a rigid time requirement for filing an exhaustion 

petition, it made clear that the structuring of a stay should reflect the timeliness concerns of the 

AEDPA. Accordingly, petitioner’s stay is lifted for the limited purpose of directing him to file his 

exhaustion petition no later than November 15, 2016.

CONCLUSION

For the above-mentioned reasons, I GRANT respondent’s motion and direct petitioner to

Case 3:13-cv-04376-WHO Document 56 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

file his exhaustion petition by November 15, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016

_______________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04376-WHO Document 56 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 3