Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00161/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00161-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON RENTERIA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

B. CURRY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-00161-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY OF

PROCEEDINGS ON PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

(Doc. 5)

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO FILE

AMENDED MOTION FOR STAY WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner originally filed his federal petition in the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California, and that petition was transferred to this Court on January 29, 2007,

and filed on February 1, 2007. (Docs. 1, 2). Although Petitioner had apparently filed a motion for

stay in the Northern District of California, the Clerk of the Court did not docket and file Petitioner’s

motion until March 2, 2007. (Doc. 5). 

In the instant petition, Petitioner raises eight grounds for relief: (1) unconstitutional

warrantless search; (2) unconstitutional interrogation of Petitioner; (3) ineffective assistance of

counsel; (4) unconstitutional limitation of cross-examination at trial by trial court; (5) Petitioner’s

conviction for first degree murder without proof of premeditation is unconstitutional; (6) wrongful

conviction for two homicide charges resulting from one death; (7) judicial misconduct by the trial

judge; and (8) wrongful admission of prior criminal acts at trial. (Doc. 2, p. 6-a). Petitioner alleges

Case 1:07-cv-00161-AWI -DLB Document 11 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing claims have been raised in the California Supreme

Court. (Doc. 2, p. 4).

In his motion for stay, Petitioner has requested a stay of proceedings to permit him to exhaust

additional grounds as well as to exhaust “expanded” claims already raised in the instant petition. 

(Doc. 5, p. 1). 

The Court’s preliminary review of the petition and a search of the California court system’s

electronic database has indicated that Petitioner was convicted on June 3, 2004, in the Kern County

Superior Court, and that his direct review concluded on January 4, 2006, when the California

Supreme Court denied his Petition for Review. Thus, it appears that the petition is timely.

DISCUSSION

Traditionally, a district court has had the discretion to stay a petition which it may validly

consider on the merits. Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-988 (9th

Cir. 1998); Greenawalt v. Stewar7, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9th Cir. 1997). However, the Ninth Circuit

has held that Taylor in no way granted “district courts carte blanche to stay even fully exhausted

habeas petitions.” Taylor, 134 F.3d at 988 n. 11. Granting a stay is appropriate where there is no

intention on the part of the Petitioner to delay or harass and in order to avoid piecemeal litigation. 

Id. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that it is proper for a district court, in its discretion, to

hold a petition containing only exhausted claims in abeyance in order to permit the petitioner to

return to state court to exhaust his state remedies. Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir.

2003); Ford v. Hubbard, 305 F.3d 875, 882-883 (9th Cir. 2002); James v. Pliler, 269 F.3d 1124,

1126-1127 (9th Cir. 2001); Taylor, 134 F.3d 981. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, until recently, federal case law continued to require that the

Court dismiss “mixed” petitions containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509, 102 S. CT. 1198 (1982). However, on March 30, 2005, the United States Supreme

Court decided Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005). Recognizing that “[a]s a

Case 1:07-cv-00161-AWI -DLB Document 11 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 4
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 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1244(d).

1

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

result of the interplay between AEDPA’s 1-year statute of limitations and Lundy’s dismissal 1

requirement, petitioners who come to federal court with ‘mixed’ petitions run the risk of forever

losing their opportunity for any federal review of their unexhausted claims,” the Supreme Court held

that federal courts may now issue “stay and abey” orders under appropriate circumstances to permit

petitioners to exhaust unexhausted claims before proceeding with their federal petitions. Rhines,

544 U.S. at 276-277. In so holding, the Supreme Court noted that the procedure should be “available

only in limited circumstances.” 544 U.S. at 277. Specifically, the Court said it was appropriate only

when (1) good cause exists for petitioner’s failure to exhaust; (2) petitioner’s unexhausted claims are

not “plainly meritless” and (3) there is no indication that petitioner engaged in “abusive litigation

tactics or intentional delay.” Id.. at 277-278; Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007). 

When a petitioner has met these requirements, his interest in obtaining federal review of his claims

outweighs the competing interests in finality and speedy resolution of federal petitions. Rhines, 544

U.S. at 278. 

Here, Petitioner has alleged under penalty of perjury that all of the claims in the instant

petition are exhausted; thus, the petition does not appear to be mixed. However, Petitioner wishes to

exhaust additional grounds in state court. Applying the Rhines standards, the Court concludes that it

must, at this juncture, deny Petitioner’s motion for stay without prejudice to Petitioner filing an

amended motion for stay within thirty days. 

While the motion for stay was filed by the Clerk of the Court on March 2, 2007, it is clear

that Petitioner included the motion in his original petition filed in the Northern District of California. 

Moreover, Petitioner filed his petition within the one-year limitations period imposed by the

AEDPA. Thus, nothing in the record suggests that Petitioner intends to harass or delay the

proceedings nor does it appear that Petitioner is engaging in dilatory conduct. 

However, in his motion Petitioner has not listed the grounds he intends to exhaust in state

court; therefore, the Court cannot determine whether those grounds are “plainly meritless” under

Rhines. 544 U.S. at 277-278. Because Petitioner may have inadvertently failed to explain to the

Case 1:07-cv-00161-AWI -DLB Document 11 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

Court the nature of the claims he wishes to exhaust, the Court will permit Petitioner to file an

amended motion for stay within thirty days in order to permit the Court to make a proper

determination under Rhines as to whether Petitioner is entitled to a stay of proceedings. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to stay the instant proceedings on his habeas petition (Doc. 5), is

DENIED without prejudice; and,

2. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which to

file an amended motion for stay of proceedings that sets forth in detail the claims he wishes

to exhaust in state court; 

3. If Petitioner does not file an amended motion for stay within the required thirty- day

period, the Court will issue an order to Respondent to file a response to the instant petition as

presently filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00161-AWI -DLB Document 11 Filed 01/18/08 Page 4 of 4