Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01168/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01168-0/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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Roam168stay 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY WAYNE ROAM, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

 vs. )

)

)

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________

C 03-1168 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

STAY PETITION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 

(Docket Nos. 33)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 15, 2004, the Court ordered

Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. On March 25, 2005,

Respondent filed an answer on the merits. Petitioner then filed a letter with the Court

requesting leave to file a supplemental brief and include four new claims in his pending

habeas action. On June 7, 2005, the Court denied the request without prejudice and

directed Petitioner to file a motion to stay the instant petition while he exhausts his

additional claims in state court, or notify the Court within thirty days that he does not

wish to pursue the motion to stay. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to stay the

instant petition while he exhausts his additional claims. 

Case 5:03-cv-01168-JF Document 34 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Roam168stay 2

Respondent opposes the motion. Petitioner filed a state habeas petition on May 24,

2005, which is now pending in the California Supreme Court. The Court will GRANT

Petitioner’s motion to stay the instant petition while he exhausts his additional claims. 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner claims that he asked his appellate attorney to raise the issues now

pending before the state court, but that his attorney told him that the issues did not

matter. Respondent contends that even if Petitioner exhausts the new claims, they are

untimely. Respondent relies upon Mayle v. Felix, 125 S. Ct. 2562, 2570 (2005), where

the Supreme Court held that amendments made after AEDPA’s one-year statute of

limitations has run relate back to the date of the original pleading if the original and

amended pleadings “‘ar[i]se out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence.’” Id.

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2)). “An amended habeas petition . . . does not relate

back (and thereby escape AEDPA’s one-year time limit) when it asserts a new ground

for relief supported by facts that differ in both time and type from those the original

pleading set forth.” Id. at 2566 (finding that new coerced confession claim did not relate

back to the original petition that raised only a factually distinct Confrontation Clause

claim). Only if the original and amended petition state claims that are tied to a common

core of operative facts will relation back be in order. Id. at 2574-75. 

District courts have the authority to issue stays, and AEDPA does not deprive

them of that authority. Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). However, the

district court’s discretion to grant a stay is circumscribed by AEDPA’s stated purposes

of reducing delay in the execution of criminal sentences and encouraging petitioner’s to

seek relief in the state courts before filing their claims in federal court. Id. Because the

use of a stay and abeyance procedure has the potential to undermine these dual purposes

of AEDPA, its use is appropriate only where the district court has first determined that

there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust the claims in state court and

that the claims are potentially meritorious. Id.

\\\

Case 5:03-cv-01168-JF Document 34 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Roam168stay 3

Here, the Court finds that Petitioner has shown good cause for his failure to

exhaust the new claims. Two of the claims allege ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel, claims which could be raised only by way of a state habeas corpus petition. 

Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims set forth cognizable bases for federal habeas

relief. While Respondent maintains that the claims are untimely, this argument does not

address the substantive merits of the claims. Additionally, the Court finds that Petitioner

has not requested a stay to intentionally delay the instant habeas action. As noted,

Petitioner already has a state habeas petition asserting the claims. Accordingly, the

Court will stay the instant petition and allow Petitioner to exhaust his additional claims

in state court. Thereafter, if Petitioner requests leave to amend the instant petition to

include the newly exhausted claims, Respondent may address the timeliness of the

claims and the propriety of amending the instant petition. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to stay the instant petition while he exhausts his

additional claims (docket no. 33) is GRANTED as set forth below. This action is

hereby STAYED until thirty days after the California Supreme Court’s final decision on

Petitioner’s remaining claims.

Once the California Supreme Court has issued a decision on Petitioner’s claims,

Petitioner shall promptly notify the Court and serve notice on Respondent. Within thirty

days of such decision, if Petitioner has not obtained relief in state court, Petitioner must

notify the Court that he wishes to reopen this action and file a motion for leave to amend

his petition to add the newly exhausted claims. 

The Clerk shall administratively close the file pending the stay of this action. 

This has no legal effect; it is purely a statistical procedure. When Petitioner informs the

Court that exhaustion has been completed the case will be administratively re-opened. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-01168-JF Document 34 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Roam168stay 4

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Jeffrey Wayne Roam

C-80656 A-2-247

High Desert State Prison

P.O. Box 3030

Susanville, CA 96127-3030

Violet M. Lee 

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 110000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:03-cv-01168-JF Document 34 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 4