Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00188/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00188-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On February 6, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus raising only 

one exhausted claim. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner filed a motion for a stay and abeyance of the proceedings, in 

which he includes three claims to be exhausted. (Doc. 4.) The Court directed Respondent to respond to 

the motion for stay and abeyance. (Doc. 5.) On March 20, 2020, Respondent filed a statement of nonopposition to a Kelly stay. (Doc. 9.) As discussed below, the Court will grant a Kelly stay. 

DISCUSSION

I. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 

the district court. . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory 

RUBEN TONY CERVANTES,

 Petitioner,

v.

W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00188-NONE-JLT (HC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY AND 

ABEYANCE

(Doc. 4)

SIXTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:20-cv-00188-DAD-JLT Document 10 Filed 04/14/20 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an 

answer to the petition has been filed. 

II. Exhaustion

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The 

exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial 

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 

722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion 

requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim 

before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). 

III. Motion for Stay and Abeyance

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. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102

(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. 2004); Ford v. Hubbard, 305 F.3d 875, 882-883 (9th Cir. 2002); James v. Pliler, 

269 F.3d 1124, 1126-1127 (9th Cir. 2002); Taylor, 134 F.3d 981.

Two procedures are available to a habeas petitioner who wishes to stay a pending federal 

petition while exhausting claims in state court: the Rhines procedure and the Kelly procedure.

See Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005). The appropriate procedure in a particular case 

depends on whether the petition is "mixed" or fully exhausted. See id.

Under Rhines, 544 U.S. 269, a district court has discretion to stay a mixed or wholly 

Case 1:20-cv-00188-DAD-JLT Document 10 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 5
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

unexhausted petition to allow a petitioner time to present his or her unexhausted claims to state 

courts. Id. at 276; see Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding a district court has the 

discretion to stay and hold in abeyance fully unexhausted petitions under the circumstances set forth 

in Rhines). This stay and abeyance procedure is called a "Rhines stay" and is available only when: (1) 

there is "good cause" for the failure to exhaust; (2) each unexhausted claim is not "plainly meritless;" 

and (3) the petitioner did not intentionally engage in dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 

277-78.

Under Kelly, 315 F.3d 1063, the district court may stay a petition's exhausted claims to allow 

the petitioner time to exhaust unexhausted claims in state court. Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71. Unlike 

a Rhines stay, a Kelly stay "does not require that a petitioner show good cause for his failure to 

exhaust state court remedies." King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135. A Kelly stay involves a three-step 

procedure: "(1) a petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays 

and holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner the opportunity to 

proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) the petitioner later amends his petition and 

re-attaches the newly-exhausted claims to the original petition." Id. (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-

71). Thus, while "Rhines allows a district court to stay a mixed petition, and does not require that 

unexhausted claims be dismissed while the petitioner attempts to exhaust them . . . Kelly allows the 

stay of fully exhausted petitions, requiring that any unexhausted claims be dismissed." Id. at 1139-

40 (emphasis in original) (citing Jackson, 425 F.3d at 661).

As Respondent contends, the petition filed is fully exhausted and Petitioner has not identified 

whether he seeks a stay under Rhines or Kelly. (Doc. 9 at 1.) In this case, a Rhines stay is 

improper. A Rhines stay applies to a mixed or wholly unexhausted petition. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 

277-78; Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Rhines applies to stays of mixed 

petitions"); Mena, 813 F.3d at 912. The petition here is fully exhausted and Petitioner seeks a stay and 

abeyance to exhaust claims not raised in it. Therefore, as Respondent contends in his statement of nonopposition, Kelly governs Petitioner's stay request. (Doc. 9 at 1-2); see Jackson, 425 F.3d at 

661 (holding that "Rhines applies to stays of mixed petitions, whereas [Kelly] applies to stays of fully 

exhausted petitions" (emphases omitted)). Since a Kelly stay does not require the showing of potential 

Case 1:20-cv-00188-DAD-JLT Document 10 Filed 04/14/20 Page 3 of 5
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

merit and good faith required for a Rhines stay, and there being no other obvious impediment 

to granting a Kelly stay, the Court will stay proceedings while Petitioner exhausts grounds stated in his 

motion.

Petitioner is cautioned, however, that while a Kelly stay does not require a showing of good 

cause, it requires compliance with the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the AEDPA. 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). "A petitioner seeking to use the Kelly procedure will be able to amend his 

unexhausted claims back into his federal petition once he has exhausted them only if those claims are 

determined to be timely." King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2009). After expiration of 

the limitation period, "a petitioner may amend a new claim into a pending federal habeas petition . . . 

only if the new claim shares a 'common core of operative facts' with the claims in the pending petition; 

a new claim does not 'relate back' . . . simply because it arises from the 'same trial, conviction, or 

sentence.'" Id. at 1141 (internal citations omitted).

The Court will not indefinitely hold the petition in abeyance. See Taylor, 134 F.3d at 988 n. 11. 

Petitioner must diligently pursue his state court remedies. He is directed to file a status report within 

60 days of the date of service of this Order, and he must file a status report every 60 days thereafter 

advising the Court of the status of the state court proceedings. Following final action by the state 

courts, Petitioner will be allowed 30 days within which to file a motion to lift the stay and for leave to 

amend the instant petition to include the newly exhausted claims. Failure to comply with these 

instructions and time allowances will result in this Court vacating the stay nunc pro tunc to the date of 

this Order. Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1071.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1) Petitioner’s motion for stay (Doc. 4) is GRANTED; 

2) Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a status report within 60 days of the date of service of this 

Order, and then every 60 days thereafter;

///

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-00188-DAD-JLT Document 10 Filed 04/14/20 Page 4 of 5
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) Following final order of the state courts, Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a motion to lift the 

stay and for leave to amend the petition to include the newly exhausted claims within 30 

days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00188-DAD-JLT Document 10 Filed 04/14/20 Page 5 of 5