Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00144/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00144-1/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

QUIN DENVIR, Bar #49374

Federal Defender

ALLISON CLAIRE, Bar #170138

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorney for Petitioner

MONTERIO TYRONE PINCKNEY 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONTERIO TYRONE PINCKNEY,

Petitioner,

v.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CIV S-05-0144 FCD GGH P 

STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING

FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS AND HOLDING

PETITION IN ABEYANCE

Petitioner, MONTERIO TYRONE PINCKNEY, and Respondent, D.L.

RUNNELS, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby agree and

stipulate as follows:

1. The pro se petition was filed in this case on January 24,

2005. At that time, Mr. Pinckney indicated that his state habeas

petition was pending in superior court. That petition was denied on

April 29, 2005. Petitioner, with the assistance of appointed federal

counsel, is currently preparing to file his petition in the next level

of the state courts. As indicated in the pro se Motion For Abeyance

On Federal Writ, filed in this court contemporaneously with the federal

petition, it is Mr. Pinckney's intention to fully exhaust his state

Case 2:05-cv-00144-FCD-CHS Document 12 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 5
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

Pinckney v. Runnels, CIV S-05-0144 FCD GGH P

Stip/order re: stay and abeyance 2

remedies regarding unexhausted claims before seeking to amend his

federal petition.

2. The parties agree and stipulate that Mr. Pinckney's current

round of exhaustion should be completed before proceedings on the

federal petition begin. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request

a stay of the instant proceedings until the exhaustion process is

complete.

3. Good cause for the stay is demonstrated by the fact that

petitioner has been pursuing his state remedies both before and since

filing the federal petition. Mr. Pinckney's conviction became final 90

days after the California Supreme Court denied direct review of the

conviction, or April 14, 2004. See, Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157 (9th

Cir. 1999). He began seeking state court collateral relief on November

3, 2004, when he filed a habeas petition in Sacramento County Superior

Court, case no. 4F09787. 

4. The federal petition filed January 24, 2005, insofar as it

sets forth one claim already exhausted on direct review, appears to

have been filed within the period of limitation prescribed by 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1). However, the timeliness of claims now pending in the

state courts, pursuant to state law, is yet to be determined. This

uncertainty regarding the status of presently unexhausted claims

constitutes good cause for a stay. See, Pace v. Diguglielmo, 125 S.Ct.

1807 (2005) (because state petition denied as untimely will not toll

federal statute of limitations, uncertainty regarding timeliness of

state filing will constitute good cause for federal filing and stay

under Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005)).

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00144-FCD-CHS Document 12 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 5
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

Pinckney v. Runnels, CIV S-05-0144 FCD GGH P

Stip/order re: stay and abeyance 3

5. Pursuant to Rhines, supra, the parties agree to the

following conditions for the stay:

a. Petitioner shall resume his pursuit of state court remedies

within 30 days after the stay is entered. Should petitioner fail to do

so, respondent may move to lift the stay;

b. Petitioner shall diligently proceed to exhaust his

remedies. Should more than 30 days elapse between the disposition of

petitioner's claims in one level of the state court system and filing

in the next, respondent may move to lift the stay;

c. Petitioner shall notify this court of final disposition by

the California Supreme Court within 30 days of decision. Petitioner

shall at that time move to lift the stay.

6. All stipulations made herein are for the sole purpose of

obtaining stay and abeyance. Both parties shall retain the right to

make and to oppose any motions. Specifically, respondent reserves the

right to assert any procedural defenses, and petitioner reserves the

right to oppose any such defenses. Petitioner also reserves the right

to oppose any motion to lift the stay prior to disposition of the

claims by the California Supreme Court, on grounds that he has

continued to be reasonably diligent under the circumstances and/or that

good cause exists to continue the stay. No representations contained

in this stipulation regarding timeliness shall be binding on either

party for any future purpose.

7. The parties submit this stipulation in lieu of the Joint

Scheduling Statement due on May 31, 2005. The parties request leave to

file a Joint Scheduling Statement within 30 days after the lifting of

the stay.

Case 2:05-cv-00144-FCD-CHS Document 12 Filed 05/27/05 Page 3 of 5
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

Pinckney v. Runnels, CIV S-05-0144 FCD GGH P

Stip/order re: stay and abeyance 4

8. Counsel for respondent, Deputy Attorney General Laura

Simpton, has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign this

document on her behalf. 

Dated: May 25, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

QUIN DENVIR

Federal Defender

/s/ 

ALLISON CLAIRE

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorneys for Petitioner

MONTERIO TYRONE PINCKNEY

Dated: May 25, 2005

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General

/s/ 

LAURA SIMPTON

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Respondent

D.L. RUNNELS

Case 2:05-cv-00144-FCD-CHS Document 12 Filed 05/27/05 Page 4 of 5
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

Pinckney v. Runnels, CIV S-05-0144 FCD GGH P

Stip/order re: stay and abeyance 5

ORDER

By stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown,

proceedings in this matter are hereby STAYED until further order of the

court. The petition for writ of habeas corpus will be held in

abeyance. The stay is subject to the following conditions:

1. Should petitioner delay more than 30 days from the date of

this order in resuming pursuit of collateral relief in state court, or

more than 30 days between the future denial of relief in any state

court and the filing of a petition in the next state court, respondent

may file a motion to lift the stay;

2. Petitioner shall notify this court, and shall move to lift the

stay, no later than 30 days after petitioner's claims are exhausted by

disposition in the California Supreme Court;

3. A joint scheduling statement shall be filed 30 days after the

stay is lifted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

pinc0144.ord05

Case 2:05-cv-00144-FCD-CHS Document 12 Filed 05/27/05 Page 5 of 5