Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07228/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07228-3/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL RAY LOYD,

Petitioner,

v.

SPEARMEN,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-07228-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 20

Petitioner filed the above-titled pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of a judgment obtained against him in state court. On 

January 31, 2019, the Court found that the petition stated six cognizable claims and ordered 

respondent to show cause as to why the petition should not be granted. Dkt. No. 10. On January

15, 2020, the Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state court 

remedies, finding that petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and cumulative error 

claim were unexhausted. Dkt. No. 18. The Court required petitioner to elect whether he wished 

to: (1) dismiss the unexhausted claims and go forward in this action with only the remaining 

claims, or (2) dismiss this action and return to state court to exhaust all of his claims before 

returning to federal court to present all of his claims in a new petition, or (3) move for a stay of 

these proceedings while he exhausted his state court remedies for the unexhausted claims. Id. 

Petitioner has filed a motion with the Court, pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), 

requesting that the Court stay these proceedings and hold his petition in abeyance so that he may 

exhaust his state court remedies for his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and cumulative 

error claim.

Upon due consideration, the Court GRANTS petitioner’s motion to stay and hold these 

Case 4:18-cv-07228-HSG Document 22 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

proceedings in abeyance. Liberally construing the motion, it appears that petitioner has shown 

good cause for his failure to exhaust the claims before filing this action, the claims do not appear 

patently meritless, and there does not appear to be any intentionally dilatory litigation tactic by 

petitioner. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. Petitioner is cautioned that he must exhaust his claims 

in the California Supreme Court. See McNeeley v. Arave, 842 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988)

(petitioner must present to highest state court all claims he wishes to raise in a federal habeas 

petition). Petitioner must also promptly return to federal court after his state court proceedings 

have concluded. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78 (a Rhines stay must be limited in time to avoid 

indefinite delay); Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1071 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds 

by Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007) (reasonable time limits would be 30 days to 

get to state court, as long as reasonably necessary in state court, and 30 days to get back to federal 

court after the final rejection of the claims by the state court). Within thirty (30) days from the 

date the California Supreme Court completes its review of petitioner’s claims, petitioner must so 

inform the Court if he wishes to seek further relief in this Court.

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay is GRANTED. This action is hereby STAYED while 

petitioner exhausts his unexhausted claims in the state courts. 

2. If petitioner is not granted relief in state court, he may return to this Court and ask 

that the stay be lifted. To do so, petitioner must notify the Court within thirty (30) days from the 

date the California Supreme Court completes its review of petitioner’s claims. The notice must 

clearly identify in the caption that it is to be filed in Case No. C 18-7228 HSG (PR). Upon 

petitioner’s filing of the notification that his claims have been exhausted, the stay will be lifted, 

the case will be reopened, and the Court will schedule further proceedings. 

3. If petitioner does not take any further action, this case will remain stayed and he 

will not receive any ruling from the Court on his petition.

4. The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of this 

action. This has no legal effect; it is purely a statistical procedure.

//

Case 4:18-cv-07228-HSG Document 22 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

This order terminates Docket No. 20.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/6/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-07228-HSG Document 22 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 3