Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00122-2/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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMIEN WAFFORD,

Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

Respondent.

1:12-cv-0122 MJS HC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHYSTAY 

SHOULD NOT BE VACATED

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 5.)

Petitioner was convicted by jury on charges of kidnaping for ransom, kidnaping, 

terrorist threats, false imprisonment by force, and commission of a crime in furtherance 

of a criminal street gang. (Pet. at 2.) Petitioner was sentenced on or about October 16, 

2008 to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. (Id.) He appealed his 

conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, which affirmed the 

judgment. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for a review in the California 

Supreme Court, but it was denied on October 13, 2010. (Id.) 

On January 12, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant petition. Petitioner there admits 

Case 1:12-cv-00122-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 10/30/13 Page 1 of 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

2

that his third and fourth claims were not presented to the California Supreme Court. 

However, he asserts that he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Kern 

County Superior Court on December 16, 2011. (Pet. at 3.) 

On August 27, 2012, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition 

herein should be stayed despite Petitioner's failure to exhaust his third and fourth claims 

during the eight months the petition had then been pending. (ECF No. 6.) Based on 

Petitioner's counsel's assertions that he would exhaust claims in his response to the 

order to show cause, the Court granted a stay on September 18, 2012. (ECF Nos. 10-

11.)

Over a year has passed since the stay was issued, and Petitioner has not yet 

notified the Court that he has exhausted his state court remedies. 

As discussed by the Supreme Court, the stay and abeyance procedure is 

available only in limited circumstances because the procedure frustrates AEDPA's 

objective of encouraging finality and streamlining federal habeas proceedings. Rhines v. 

Weber, 544 U.S. 277 (2005).

A mixed petition should not be stayed indefinitely... Without time 

limits, petitioners could frustrate AEDPA's goal of finality by dragging out 

indefinitely their federal habeas review. Thus, district courts should place 

reasonable time limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and back. See, 

e.g., Zarvela, 254 F.3d, at 381 ("[District courts] should explicitly condition 

the stay on the prisoner's pursuing state court remedies within a brief 

interval, normally 30 days, after the stay is entered and returning to federal 

court within a similarly brief interval, normally 30 days after state court 

exhaustion is completed"). And if a petitioner engages in abusive litigation 

tactics or intentional delay, the district court should not grant him a stay at 

all. See id., at 380-381. 

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78.

Here, more than a year has passed since the matter was stayed. Petitioner has 

had sufficient time to present any unexhausted claims before the state courts. Petitioner 

is therefore ordered to show cause why the stay should not be vacated. 

ORDER

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner file a response to the order to show 

cause within fourteen (14) days of service of this order explaining why the stay should 

Case 1:12-cv-00122-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 10/30/13 Page 2 of 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

3

not be vacated. 

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of 

the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

ci4d6

Case 1:12-cv-00122-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 10/30/13 Page 3 of 3