Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06224/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06224-8/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

JUAN MATIAS TORRES,

Petitioner,

v.

RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 12-cv-06224-YGR (PR)

ORDER STAYING HABEAS

PROCEEDINGS; DIRECTING 

PETITIONER TO FILE QUARTERLY 

STATUS REPORTS; AND DIRECTING 

CLERK TO ADMINISTRATIVELY 

CLOSE THIS CASE UNTIL THE 

COURT ISSUES ORDER LIFTING 

STAY

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Following an initial review of the petition, the Court ordered Respondent to 

show cause why the petition should not be granted. Respondent has filed an answer to the 

petition, and Petitioner has filed a traverse.

Currently pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to stay his federal petition

while he exhausts his remedies in state court as well as his amended motions for discovery and for 

an evidentiary hearing. Dkts. 35, 42.

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge in federal habeas proceedings either the 

fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies by 

presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and 

every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 

U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). If available state remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, the 

district court must dismiss the petition. Id. at 510; Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 

1988). A dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to returning to federal court after 

exhausting available state remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 

1995). 

Petitioners may seek a stay of the petition pursuant to Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 

416 (2005), under which a prisoner may file a protective petition in federal court and ask the court 

Case 4:12-cv-06224-YGR Document 45 Filed 07/01/15 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

to stay federal habeas proceedings until all state remedies are exhausted. District courts have the 

authority to issue stays, and the habeas statute does not deprive them of that authority. Rhines v. 

Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-278 (2005). A stay is appropriate where the district court determines 

that good cause existed for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims in state court, and that 

such claims are potentially meritorious. Id.; see also Pace, 544 U.S. at 416. 

Here, it appears that good cause exists for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his sentencing 

claim on direct appeal because it could be raised by way of state habeas corpus.1 Moreover, the

sentencing claim states a cognizable basis for federal habeas relief. This is Petitioner’s first 

habeas petition, and there is no evidence that he seeks the stay for improper purposes. See Fetterly 

v. Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301-02 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that a stay for the purpose of 

permitting exhaustion of unexhausted claims should be granted only if the claims petitioner seeks 

to pursue are cognizable under section 2254; there is a likelihood of prejudice to petitioner if the 

stay is not granted; and there is no evidence that the motion for a stay is brought to delay, vex, or 

harass, or that the request is an abuse of the writ). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 

request for a stay. Dkt. 42.

These proceedings are hereby STAYED pending Petitioner’s exhaustion of his state 

judicial remedies. Petitioner must act diligently in exhausting his state judicial remedies, or the 

stay may be lifted. He must file quarterly reports describing the progress of his state court 

proceedings, commencing twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order and continuing 

every ninety (90) days thereafter until his state court proceedings are terminated. He must also 

attach to his status reports copies of the cover page of any document that he files with or receives

from the state courts relating to the sentencing claim.

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

 

1

Petitioner notes that he has already filed state habeas petitions raising his unexhausted 

sentencing claim; however, it seems that he has not yet received a decision from the State’s 

highest court. Dkt. 42 at 2-3. At the time he filed his motion to stay, Petitioner claims that he had 

been appointed an attorney by the state appellate court and that his attorney “was going to be filing 

a habeas corpus petition based on a change in the law in regards to the United States Supreme 

Court [case] Descamps v. United States (2013) 133 S. Ct. 2276.” Id. at 3. Petitioner adds that 

“this change in the law occurred while [his] federal petition was already pending.” Id.

Case 4:12-cv-06224-YGR Document 45 Filed 07/01/15 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 action. Nothing further will take place in this action until Petitioner receives a final decision 

from the highest state court and, within twenty-eight (28) days of doing so, moves to reopen the 

action, lift the Court’s stay and amend the stayed petition to add the newly-exhausted sentencing

claim. 

Because the Court has granted Petitioner’s motion to stay his federal petition, his 

remaining amended motions for discovery and for an evidentiary hearing are DENIED without 

prejudice to refiling when he moves to reopen this action. Dkt. 35.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 35 and 42.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

July 1, 2015

Case 4:12-cv-06224-YGR Document 45 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 3