Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01952/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01952-0/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

-1- 10cv1952

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRYL TYRONE FOSTER, Civil No. 10cv1952 BTM (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE REQUEST STAY AND

ABEYANCE

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking the Court to grant

a stay and abeyance pursuant to Rhines v. Webber, 54 U.S. 269 (2005). The Court cannot grant

or deny a stay in this matter because Petitioner has not yet filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therefore, unless Petitioner is a capital prisoner, he has

not initiated habeas proceedings in this Court. Calderon (Nicolaus) v. United States District

Court, 98 F.3d 1102, 1107 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that “[u]nlike non-capital prisoners who

initiate habeas proceedings by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, capital prisoners

commence federal habeas proceedings by filing a request for appointment of counsel”);

McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994). Petitioner does not contend that he is a capital

prisoner, that is, a prisoner under sentence of death, and there is nothing in the documents he has

submitted which indicates that he is a capital prisoner. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01952-BTM-BLM Document 2 Filed 10/01/10 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

-2- 10cv1952

Further, the Court advises Petitioner that a one-year statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(d)(1)(A)-(D), which provides that the limitation period shall run from the latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by

State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is

removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the

Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review;

or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (2008).

The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition

is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999).

But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’

when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record]

are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings.”). However, absent some

other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations does run while a federal habeas petition is

pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s request to stay and abey this matter is DENIED

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 1, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01952-BTM-BLM Document 2 Filed 10/01/10 Page 2 of 2