Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06170/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06170-1/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL CARRILLO ORNELAS, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6170 DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

MOTION FOR ABEYANCE SHOULD

vs. BE GRANTED

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, [Doc. 17]

Respondent. ORDER VACATING ORDER DIRECTING 

RESPONDENT TO FILE RESPONSE TO 

AMENDED PETITION 

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction

of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner filed the instant petition on August 26, 2004, and an amended petition on December

8, 2004. By order of December 13, 2004, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the

petition. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on February 11, 2005. 

On April 29, 2005, the undersigned denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss and directed

Respondent to file a response to the amended petition. On May 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to

Case 1:04-cv-06170-DLB Document 19 Filed 05/31/05 Page 1 of 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

1

 The Court notes that on May 23, 2005, Petitioner filed an untimely opposition to Respondent’s February 11, 2005,

motion to dismiss. Because prior to filing of Petitioner’s opposition, the Court had already denied Respondent’s motion to

dismiss, Petitioner’s opposition is disregarded. 

2AEDPA refers to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

2

hold the petition in abeyance.

1

 

In the amended petition of which this action is proceeding, Petitioner raises the following two

claims only: 1) the trial court engaged in instructional error; and 2) his trial counsel was ineffective. 

In Rhines v. Weber, 2005 WL 711587 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a district court has

discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to the state

court in the first instance and then to return to federal court for review of his perfected petition. 

Nevertheless, stay and abeyance is available only in limited circumstances,because the procedure

frustrates AEDPA’s2 objective of encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner to delay the resolution

of federal proceedings and undermines AEDPA’s goal of streamlining federal habeas proceedings by

decreasing a petitioner’s incentive to exhaust all his claims in state court prior to filing his federal

petition.Id. The Supreme Court held 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.” Id.

In his motion for abeyance, Petitioner indicates that he submits this request to hold the petition

in abeyance pending exhaustion of claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel,

Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment, unintelligent waiver of trial on priors, and erroneous

jury instructions. 

Petitioner has not demonstrated “good cause” as to why the unexhausted claims were not raised

in the state court prior to filing the instant petition. Further, in his motion Petitioner indicates that had

he been informed of his options he would have chosen to delete the unexhausted claims and avail

himself of the “stay and abey” process. However, Petitioner did not raise the instant unexhausted claims

in the original or amended petition. This is the first time the Court or Respondent are aware of the

unexhausted claims Petitioner is attempting to exhaust and raise in this action. 

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-06170-DLB Document 19 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 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 3

 The Court notes that Respondent’s response is due on or about June 16, 2005. (Court Doc. 16.)

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner must

demonstrate “good cause” for his failure to raise the unexhausted claims in the state

court; and 

2. In light of Petitioner’s instant request for abeyance, the Court’s April 29, 2005, directing

Respondent to file a response to the instant petition is VACATED and Respondent is not

required to file a response to the amended petition until further directed by the Court.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06170-DLB Document 19 Filed 05/31/05 Page 3 of 3