Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01912/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01912-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS HOWARD LENART, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1912 FCD KJM

vs. DEATH PENALTY CASE

STEVEN ORNOSKI,

Acting Warden of California 

State Prison at San Quentin, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On September 21, 2005, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

court. A preliminary statement to the petition makes clear that it was filed to protect petitioner’s

rights as suggested in Pace v. DiGuglielmo, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1807 (2005). Petitioner’s

conviction and sentence were affirmed by the California Supreme Court on May 7, 2004. People

v. Lenart, 32 Cal. 4th 1107 (2004). On August 4, 2004, petitioner filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus with the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court has not issued

a decision in the habeas action. The present federal petition raises both exhausted and

unexhausted claims.

In Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005), the Supreme

Court recognized the district court’s authority to stay a mixed petition if it finds good cause for

Case 2:05-cv-01912-MCE-CKD Document 3 Filed 10/28/05 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

2

petitioner’s prior failure to exhaust and merit to the claims petitioner is seeking to exhaust. In

Pace, the Court stated that “reasonable confusion” over timeliness rules would “ordinarily”

amount to good cause. 125 S. Ct. at 1813-14. At this point in time, California’s timeliness rules

lack clarity. Cf. Dennis v. Brown, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1132-34 (N.D. Cal. 2005). It is

reasonable for petitioner to be confused about their potential application to his case. He has met

the good cause standard under Rhines. Further, a review of the petition shows petitioner’s claims

are not plainly meritless. A stay is appropriate.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner’s request for a stay of these proceedings is granted.

2. Petitioner shall inform this court within ten days after the California Supreme

Court resolves his habeas petition. If it is not resolved within ninety days of the date of this

order, petitioner shall at that time file a status report on the progress of the state habeas petition. 

Petitioner shall continue to file status reports every ninety days until the California Supreme

Court resolves the state petition.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order upon counsel for

petitioner and to serve courtesy copies of this order and the petition upon counsel for respondent.

DATED: October 27, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

lenartstay.or

Case 2:05-cv-01912-MCE-CKD Document 3 Filed 10/28/05 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

3

Case 2:05-cv-01912-MCE-CKD Document 3 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 3