Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04222/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04222-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL SKIDMORE,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE LIZARRAGA,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-04222-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S 

MOTION TO STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 4

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition sets forth seven claims challenging the constitutionality of 

petitioner’s conviction in state court. He claims: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in 

failing to adequately investigate and challenge the DNA evidence; (2) ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel in failing to investigate and present evidence that one of the minor victims had denied 

that any abuse had occurred; (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to seek to exclude 

the testimony concerning petitioner’s prior conviction; (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in 

failing to investigate the factual and legal issues in the case; (5) ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel in failing to object to the introduction of unreliable and unduly prejudicial evidence; (6) 

petitioner’s sentence is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution; and (7) the cumulative errors in petitioner’s case warrant relief. (Dkt. 

No. 1 at 25:1-35:23.)

The petition presents “mixed” claims; that is, claims that are exhausted and three claims

that are unexhausted. The fourth, fifth, and seventh claims above are unexhausted, but are the 

subject of a petition currently pending before the California Supreme Court. (Dkt. No. 1 at 14:18-

22; Dkt. No. 1-17.) Petitioner has filed a motion for a stay of this petition while he exhausts these 

Case 5:14-cv-04222-BLF Document 5 Filed 10/20/14 Page 1 of 2
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

claims. (Dkt. No. 4.)

A district court may stay a mixed habeas petition to allow the petitioner to exhaust state 

court remedies as to those claims that have not yet been presented to the state’s highest court. See 

Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277–78 (2005). In Rhines, the Supreme Court discussed the stayand-abeyance procedure, explaining that a stay and abeyance “is only appropriate when the district 

court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state 

court,” the claims are not meritless, and there are no intentionally dilatory litigation tactics by the 

petitioner. Id. If the stay is granted, the petitioner does not have to worry that his newlyexhausted claims will be barred by the statute of limitations because those claims remain pending 

in federal court. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1139, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009).

Petitioner’s claims, when liberally construed, state a cognizable claim for relief. As such, 

he has shown that they are “potentially meritorious” within the meaning of Rhines. Petitioner has

shown cause for his failure to exhaust these claims prior to arriving in federal court; namely, prior 

habeas counsel’s ineffective assistance of counsel and abandonment. Further, Petitioner alleges 

that he has diligently pursued these claims since their discovery in October 2013 and his retention 

of new counsel in June 2014. 

Good cause shown, petitioner’s request for a stay of these federal habeas proceedings 

while his petition before the California Supreme Court is adjudicated is GRANTED. Accordingly, 

the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Clerk is instructed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the case;

2. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a status report every ninety (90) days advising the Court 

of his status in California Supreme Court;

3. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a motion to reopen this case and lift the stay within 

thirty (30) days of exhaustion in state court of his unexhausted claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2014

______________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04222-BLF Document 5 Filed 10/20/14 Page 2 of 2