Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01813/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01813-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-1813 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

STAY; DIRECTING CLERK TO

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE FILE

(Docket No. 9)

On March 30, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility, Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 12, 2008, the Court, in ruling on

respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as unexhausted, found petitioner had exhausted

only one of his two claims. Specifically, the Court found petitioner had not fairly presented

to the state courts his claim that the decision of the California Board of Prison Hearings to

deny him parole was not supported by some evidence. Consequently, the Court directed

petitioner to either file an amended petition containing only his exhausted claim, or request a

stay pending exhaustion of his unexhausted claim. See Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277

(2005) (holding district courts must provide petitioner opportunity to amend mixed petition

by striking unexhausted claim or, alternatively, may stay mixed petition while petitioner

returns to state court to exhaust unexhausted claim). Petitioner chose the latter course, and

has filed a request for a stay.

Good cause appearing, the motion for a stay is GRANTED, and the above-titled

Case 3:07-cv-01813-MMC Document 10 Filed 07/14/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Petitioner does not articulate clearly in his request for a stay the reasons for his failure

to exhaust his claim that some evidence did not support the decision to deny parole. See

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277 (holding stay will not be granted unless petitioner can show good

cause for failure to exhaust). In his opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss, however,

petitioner argued he had fairly presented such claim to the state courts because he believed it

necessarily was included in his state court claim that the “some evidence” standard was not

the proper standard of review. As petitioner believed, albeit mistakenly, that he had fairly

presented his claim in state court, the Court finds he has shown good cause for his failure to

exhaust. 

2

action is hereby STAYED until petitioner files a motion to reopen as described below.1 

In keeping with the Court’s interest in placing “reasonable limits on a petitioner’s trip

to state court and back,” id. at 278, petitioner is instructed that he must present to the

California Supreme Court, within thirty days of the date this order is filed, the unexhausted

claim he wishes to raise herein; thereafter, within thirty days of the California Supreme

Court’s decision, he must file a motion to reopen this action. Additionally, petitioner must

file an AMENDED PETITION at the same time as the above-described motion to reopen this

action. The amended petition must include the caption and civil case number used in this

order, No. C 07-1813 MMC (PR), and must include the words AMENDED PETITION on

the first page.

In the amended petition, petitioner must include all the claims he wishes to present,

including both the newly-exhausted claim and the cognizable claim from the present petition. 

If petitioner files a motion to reopen this action, but does not concurrently file an amended

petition in compliance with the instructions set forth herein, this action will proceed only on

the basis of the cognizable claim from the present petition.

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

action. 

This order terminates Docket No. 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 14, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01813-MMC Document 10 Filed 07/14/08 Page 2 of 2