Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03231/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03231-2/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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO MERINO,

Petitioner, 

 v.

MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden, 

Respondent.

 /

No. C 08-03231 CW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE

OF FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS;

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

(Doc. #14)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Mario Merino, a state prisoner, has filed a pro

se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. On July 15, 2008, the Court issued an Order to Show

Cause why the writ should not be granted. Doc. #2. On 

December 3, 2008, Respondent filed an Answer. Doc. #11. On

December 12, 2008, Petitioner filed a Traverse. Doc. #13. 

On January 26, 2010, Petitioner filed a request to stay

and abey federal proceedings. Doc. #14. Petitioner’s request

was prompted by a November 2009 letter he received from the

Santa Clara County Office of the Public Defender, which

Case 4:08-cv-03231-CW Document 16 Filed 05/06/10 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

2

informed him that the office was reopening his case based on

the state appellate court’s recent decision in People v. Uribe,

162 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (2008). Uribe held that a videotape of

a victim’s Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) examination was

favorable defense evidence as defined under Brady v. Maryland,

373 U.S. 83 (1963) and that the prosecution’s failure to

produce the videotape of the SART exam constituted a Brady

violation. Uribe, 162 Cal. App. 4th at 1463. 

In his request for a stay, Petitioner explains that “it

was not until [he] was notified by the Santa Clara County

Public Defender that . . . [he] even became aware that any

[SART] videotape existed” and that, as in Uribe, the

prosecution’s failure to produce the SART videotape in his case

violated Brady. Doc. #14 at 2. Citing this newly-discovered

evidence, Petitioner moves for a stay and abeyance of these

proceedings to allow him to exhaust in state court his new

claims of Brady error and prosecutorial misconduct related to

the suppression of the videotape. Respondent opposes the

motion on the ground that “because Petitioner failed to include

the claim he now seeks to exhaust in his originally filed

petition, he does not present a mixed petition,” and argues

this Court accordingly has no discretion to issue the stay. 

Doc. #15 at 2. The Court disagrees. 

DISCUSSION

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (“AEDPA”), codified under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, prisoners in

state custody who wish to challenge in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are

Case 4:08-cv-03231-CW Document 16 Filed 05/06/10 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

3

first required to exhaust state judicial remedies by presenting

the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to

rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise

in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) & (c); Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515–16 (1982). District courts have

inherent authority to issue stays where a stay would be a

proper exercise of discretion. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269,

276 (2005). AEDPA does not strip district courts of that

discretion; it merely limits it. Id. Stay and abeyance is 

appropriate when the district court determines there was good

cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust his unexhausted claim

in state court and the claim is potentially meritorious. Id.

at 277. 

Here, it appears that good cause exists for Petitioner’s

failure to exhaust his claims at the time he filed the instant

Petition on July 3, 2008, because it was not until late

November 2009 that the Santa Clara County Office of the Public

Defender notified him that the prosecution failed to disclose

Brady evidence in his case. Petitioner filed his request for a

stay within two months of receiving notice. See Doc. #14 at

2–3. 

Further, this is Petitioner’s first habeas petition and

there is no evidence he seeks the stay for improper purposes. 

See Fetterly v. Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301–02 (9th Cir. 1993)

(a stay for the purpose of permitting exhaustion of unexhausted

claims should be granted only if the claims petitioner seeks to

pursue are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, there is a

likelihood of prejudice to petitioner if the stay is not

Case 4:08-cv-03231-CW Document 16 Filed 05/06/10 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

C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes95EC0B\Merino-08-3231-grant stay-exhaust.wpd 4

granted and there is no evidence that the motion for a stay is

brought to delay, vex, or harass, or that the request is an

abuse of the writ). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s

request for a stay.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s request for a stay (Doc. #14) is GRANTED. 

These proceedings are hereby STAYED pending Petitioner’s

exhaustion of his state judicial remedies. Petitioner must act

diligently in exhausting his state judicial remedies or the

stay may be lifted. He must file quarterly reports describing

the progress of his state court proceedings, commencing thirty

(30) days from the date of this Order and continuing every

ninety (90) days thereafter until his state court proceedings

are terminated. He also must attach to his status reports

copies of the cover page of any document that he files with or

receives from the California Supreme Court relating to the new 

claims.

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate the motion listed

under docket number 14 and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file

pending the stay of this action. Nothing further will take

place in this action until Petitioner receives a final decision

from the California Supreme Court on his unexhausted claims

and, within thirty (30) days of doing so, moves to lift the

Court’s stay, reopen the action and amend the stayed Petition

to add the newly-exhausted claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/6/2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:08-cv-03231-CW Document 16 Filed 05/06/10 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

C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes95EC0B\Merino-08-3231-grant stay-exhaust.wpd 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO MERINO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WARDEN, MULE CREEK STATE

PRISON et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-03231 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 6, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Mario Merino V-54572

Mule Creek State Prison

B-8-242U

P.O. Box 409040

Ione, CA 94560

Dated: May 6, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-03231-CW Document 16 Filed 05/06/10 Page 5 of 5