Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03859/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03859-0/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTINA DAWN LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MATTHEW CATE,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-03859 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Order to Stay Proceedings and

Administratively Close Case

Petitioner Lopez has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section

2254 to challenge her 2006 Santa Cruz County Superior Court conviction. She was convicted for

six criminal offenses under California law, including torture, second degree robbery, assault by

means likely to produce great bodily injury, false imprisonment, kidnapping and assault with a

firearm. She now moves to stay the proceedings and hold the petition in abeyance so she can first

exhaust all state habeas remedies before proceeding in federal court. 

Lopez raised several constitutional challenges to her conviction by way of a petition to

review timely filed with the California Supreme Court. The direct appeal was denied by the

California Supreme Court on June 11, 2008. Lopez’s conviction became final for purposes of the

one-year statute of limitation set forth in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

(AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), 90 days later, when the deadline for filing for review in the

United States Supreme Court expired. Lopez filed this federal habeas petition on August 21, 2009,

Case 3:09-cv-03859-MHP Document 3 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 3
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

within the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations. Lopez had previously filed her first petition for

habeas corpus relief in state court on August 14, 2009. In that state petition, for the first time, she

raised challenges to her conviction based on actual innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel. 

The California Supreme Court has not yet reviewed those challenges. Lopez now asks for a stay so

she may finish pursuing state habeas remedies for the actual innocence and ineffective assistance of

counsel claims. 

A district court may stay a habeas petition to allow the petitioner to exhaust state court

remedies as to those claims that have not yet been presented to the state's highest court. See Rhines

v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). In Rhines, the Court discussed the stay-and-abeyance

procedure, explaining that a stay and abeyance is only appropriate when there was good cause for

the petitioner's failure to first exhaust state remedies, the claims are not meritless, and there are no

intentionally dilatory litigation tactics by the petitioner. Id. at 277-78.

Lopez has identified the claims she wishes to assert that have not yet been exhausted in state

court, has explained that state court remedies were not exhausted because her appellate counsel did

not argue for actual innocence or ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, and does not

appear to be engaged in dilatory litigation tactics. A stay would not offend the purposes of the

AEDPA as explained in Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277, and apparently would comport with the procedure

approved in Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (noting that prisoners who run the risk

of having federal statute of limitations expire while exhausting state remedies may avoid this

predicament “by filing a protective petition in federal court and asking the federal court to stay and

abey the federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are exhausted”) (internal quotations

omitted). 

Accordingly, the motion for a stay and abeyance is GRANTED. This action is STAYED and

the clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the action. Nothing further will take place in this

action until Lopez exhausts the unexhausted claims and, within thirty days of doing so, files a

motion to reopen this action, lift the court’s stay and proceed with this action. Lopez must act

diligently to get her state court petition filed and promptly return to federal court after her state court

Case 3:09-cv-03859-MHP Document 3 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

proceedings have concluded. If she does not return within thirty days of exhausting the unexhausted

claims and the limitations period has expired, dismissal is quite likely. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278;

Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1071 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1042 (2003).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/11/2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:09-cv-03859-MHP Document 3 Filed 03/11/10 Page 3 of 3