Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00147/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00147-1/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

18-CV-147-JLS (JLB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAN PATRICK BANKS,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18-CV-147-JLS (JLB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) 

GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION; (3) STAYING PETITION

(ECF Nos. 2, 7)

Petitioner Sean Patrick Banks filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending 

Exhaustion of State Remedies and to Hold Federal Petition in Abeyance, (ECF No. 2). 

Respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion, (ECF No. 5), and Petitioner filed a Reply 

in support of the Motion, (ECF No. 6). Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a Report 

and Recommendation, recommending this Court grant Petitioner’s Motion and issue a stay 

and abeyance of the Petition. (“R&R,” ECF No. 7.) Neither Party has objected to the 

R&R.

BACKGROUND

Judge Burkhardt’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual 

and procedural histories underlying the instant Motion. (See R&R 1–3.)1 This Order 

 

1 Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF page numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.

Case 3:18-cv-00147-JLS-JLB Document 8 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-147-JLS (JLB)

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

incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which 

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 

617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only 

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment 

(citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must 

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 

but not otherwise.”).

ANALYSIS

Petitioner’s Petition is a “mixed petition,” which is one that contains some claims 

that have been fully exhausted in state court and some claims that have not. (R&R 4.) Both 

Parties agree that a stay of the current proceedings is appropriate, but “disagree as to 

whether this Court should grant a stay utilizing the ‘stay and abey’ procedure set forth in 

the Supreme Court case Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), or the procedure established 

by the Ninth Circuit in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).” (Id. at 3.) Judge 

Burkhardt recommends this Court issue a stay and abeyance of the Petition under Rhines. 

(Id. at 10.)

Under the Rhines procedure, a court stays the mixed petition and holds it in abeyance 

while the petitioner exhausts his unexhausted claims in state court. 544 U.S. at 275. Once 

the petitioner has exhausted his claims, the district court lifts the stay and allows the 

petitioner to proceed in federal court on all claims. Id. at 277. Before granting the stay, 

Case 3:18-cv-00147-JLS-JLB Document 8 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-147-JLS (JLB)

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 district court must determine the petitioner has (1) good cause for his failure to exhaust; 

(2) unexhausted claims that are potentially meritorious; and (3) refrained from 

“intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Id. Here, the issue is whether there is good cause 

for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his unexhausted claims.

Judge Burkhardt found that Petitioner has met his burden to show good cause in his 

failure to exhaust his claims. (R&R 7.) Petitioner’s unexhausted claims are based on new 

evidence which was allegedly found after Petitioner appealed his state court conviction. 

(Id.) Further, although there was a four-month delay between Petitioner and his counsel’s

discovery of the new evidence and the filing of the new claims in state court, this does not 

negate good cause. (Id. at 8.) “Petitioner has set forth a reasonable excuse, supported by 

evidence, for not exhausting state remedies earlier.” (Id. at 9.) Further, Judge Burkhardt 

agrees with the Parties that Petitioner has established the final two prongs of Rhines: 

Petitioner’s claims are not plainly meritless, and Petitioner has not engaged in intentionally 

dilatory litigation tactics. (Id.)

The Court finds no clear error in Judge Burkhardt’s findings and recommendations 

and ADOPTS the R&R. The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance. 

No later than 30 days after proceedings in his state case are completed, Petitioner SHALL

serve and file notice that proceedings are completed. The Clerk of Court SHALL STAY

this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00147-JLS-JLB Document 8 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3