Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03138/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03138-0/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)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN JOE LARA,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 06-3138 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE

CASE 

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254 to challenge his 2003 Santa Clara County Superior Court conviction for several sex

offenses. Respondent filed an answer to the petition in which he asserted that state court

remedies had not been exhausted for the Blakely/Cunningham claim petitioner had asserted

with respect to his sentence. See Resp. Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support

Of Answer, pp. 15-16; Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007); Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Petitioner responded by filing a motion to hold this action

in abeyance pending resolution in state court of his Cunningham claim and other unidentified

claims. In light of the parties agreement that petitioner needs to further present his

Cunningham claim to the state courts, this court GRANTS the motion to hold this action in

abeyance. (Docket # 20.) See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). 

This action is now STAYED and the clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the

action. Nothing further will take place in this action until petitioner exhausts the

unexhausted claim and, within thirty days of doing so, moves to reopen this action, lift the

court’s stay and proceed with consideration of his habeas petition. When he finishes in state

Case 3:06-cv-03138-MHP Document 22 Filed 05/09/08 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

2

court and moves to reopen, petitioner must clearly identify each claim that has been

exhausted in state court. 

Petitioner must act diligently to get his state court petition filed and promptly return to

federal court after his state court proceedings have concluded. If petitioner does not return

within thirty days of exhausting the unexhausted claim, the action or the unexhausted claims

may be dismissed. See id.; Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1071 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 538

U.S. 1042 (2003). Petitioner also must exercise continuous diligence during the exhaustion

process in the state courts. Imposing these time limits for petitioner to expeditiously get to,

through, and back from state court furthers the AEDPA's goals of encouraging finality of

judgments and streamlining federal habeas proceedings. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278.

After moving for a stay, Lara moved for appointment to represent him in this action. 

A district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court

determines that the interests of justice so require and such person is financially unable to

obtain representation." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is

within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th

Cir. 1986). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case

indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. The

interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in this action. The motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 21.)

Finally, the court notes that plaintiff mailed his motion to hold this action in abeyance

to respondent's counsel at a Sacramento street address. Plaintiff is reminded that he should

serve respondent by mailing documents to respondent's counsel at the San Francisco street

address listed on respondent's counsel's filings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 8, 2008 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03138-MHP Document 22 Filed 05/09/08 Page 2 of 2