Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06049/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06049-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

No. C 09-6049 RS (PR)

ORDER STAYING PETITION

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 5/5/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOSEPH E. HUGHES,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES WALKER, Warden, 

Respondents.

 /

No. C 09-6049 RS (PR)

ORDER STAYING PETITION;

VACATING IN PART PREVIOUS

ORDER 

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenges convictions received in 2004 in a San Mateo

Superior Court for committing lewd acts on a person under the age of fourteen. The petition

contains six claims, five of which petitioner asserts were exhausted in the state courts, and

one that petitioner concedes is unexhausted. 

In a previous order, the Court dismissed the unexhausted claim, and granted petitioner

a stay under King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009) on grounds that a stay under Rhines

v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277–78 (2005) would be inappropriate as petitioner had not

sufficiently explained whether his unexhausted claim was presented on direct appeal to the

Case 3:09-cv-06049-RS Document 13 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 2
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

No. C 09-6049 RS (PR)

2 ORDER STAYING PETITION

state appellate and supreme courts, or, if it was not presented on direct appeal, why it was

not. Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 12). 

Petitioner has now provided sufficient grounds for a stay under Rhines, which is

hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, petitioner does not have to worry that his newly-exhausted

claim will be barred by the statute of limitations because that claim remains pending in

federal court. See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1139, 1140. (9th Cir. 2009). The Court’s

previous order, Docket No. 11, is VACATED to the extent that it granted a stay and

dismissed the unexhausted claim of juror vote-bartering. The unexhausted claim now is

deemed part of the petition. The denials of petitioner’s motions for the appointment of

counsel, and the application to proceed in forma pauperis, however, remain in force. 

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, petitioner’s request for a stay is

hereby GRANTED, and the above-titled action is hereby STAYED until petitioner exhausts

the unexhausted claim and, provided petitioner, within thirty (30) days of exhausting said

claim, moves to reopen this action and lift the stay, for such additional period of time and

until the Court thereafter orders the stay lifted.

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

action.

The order terminates Docket No. 12. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 5, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-06049-RS Document 13 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 2