Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02321/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02321-0/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

K:\COMMON\GALLO\CASES\CASES11\MUNOZ - Habe\Stay & Abey Sched Order 10 7.wpd, 10711 -1- 11cv2321

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE T. MUNOZ, Civil No. 11cv2321-H (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR STAY

AND ABEYANCE

v.

SUSAN L. HUBBARD, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, accompanied by a Motion for stay and abeyance.

Petitioner indicates that he currently has pending in state court a claim alleging ineffective

assistance of counsel regarding DNA issues, and requests a stay of this action until he has

completed exhaustion of that claim. (Doc. No. 4 at 1.)

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005) the Supreme Court held that

“a stay and abeyance ‘should be available only in limited circumstances,’ and is appropriate only

when the district court determines that there was ‘good cause’ for the failure to exhaust.”

Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1535).

Petitioner is required to demonstrate there are arguably meritorious claims which he wishes to

return to state court to exhaust and that he is diligently pursuing his state court remedies with

respect to those claims. Jackson, 425 F.3d at 661; Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th

Cir. 2000). 

Case 3:11-cv-02321-H-WMC Document 5 Filed 10/07/11 Page 1 of 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

K:\COMMON\GALLO\CASES\CASES11\MUNOZ - Habe\Stay & Abey Sched Order 10 7.wpd, 10711 -2- 11cv2321

Petitioner has alleged that he is currently exhausting an ineffective assistance of counsel

claim based on counsel’s failure to conduct DNA testing, and that he was delayed in presenting

the claim to the state court because he had to await a ruling on a “P.C. 1405 motion.” (Pet.’s

Motion at 1.) Respondent, if opposing the motion, should address whether Petitioner has

adequately alleged an arguably meritorious claim and whether he has shown good cause for any

delay.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent shall file a response to the Motion for stay and

abeyance no later than November 14, 2011, and Petitioner shall file his reply, if any, to the

Respondent’s brief no later than November 28, 2011. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 7, 2011

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02321-H-WMC Document 5 Filed 10/07/11 Page 2 of 2