Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03162/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03162-0/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 Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Diaz162stay

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL E. DIAZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 06-3162 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; GRANTING MOTION TO

STAY PETITION; INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK

(Docket No. 5)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

a motion for stay and abeyance. The Court will GRANT Petitioner’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis (docket no. 5) and GRANT Petitioner’s motion to stay the petition while he

exhausts his additional claims in state court. 

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court concludes that

Petitioner has shown good cause to proceed in forma pauperis set forth in his prisoner trust

account documents. 

Case 5:06-cv-03162-JF Document 7 Filed 01/24/08 Page 1 of 4

**E-filed 1/24/08**
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Diaz162stay 2

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 5) is GRANTED. 

B. Motion to Stay Amended Petition

Petitioner has filed a motion to stay the petition in order to raise his unexhausted

claims in state court. District courts have the authority to issue stays and AEDPA does not

deprive them of that authority. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). The district

court’s discretion to stay a mixed petition is circumscribed by AEDPA’s stated purposes of

reducing delay in the execution of criminal sentences and encouraging petitioners 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 only appropriate 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. Moreover, where granting a stay, the district court must

effectuate the timeliness concerns in AEDPA by placing “reasonable limits on a petitioner’s

trip to state court and back.” Id. at 278. Prisoners who may run the risk of having the federal

statute of limitations expire while they are exhausting their 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.” Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (citing Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78). 

Here, Petitioner’s proposed claims are cognizable under § 2254 and are not “plainly

meritless.” Petitioner appears to show good cause for his failure to exhaust his additional

claims in state court based upon his allegations of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate

counsel. Additionally, the Court notes that Respondent has yet to file an answer to the

petition and Petitioner filed a motion to stay with his original petition in this Court. Thus,

Petitioner does not appear to be intentionally delaying this action. Accordingly, Petitioner’s

motion to stay the instant petition to allow him to exhaust his additional claims is

GRANTED. This action is hereby STAYED until thirty days after the California Supreme

Court’s final decision on Petitioner’s additional claims, as set forth below. 

Case 5:06-cv-03162-JF Document 7 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Diaz162stay 3

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 5) is GRANTED. 

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay the petition is GRANTED and the above-titled 

action is hereby STAYED until thirty days after the California Supreme Court’s final

decision on Petitioner’s additional claims.

3. Petitioner is cautioned that if he wishes to have this Court consider his 

unexhausted claims, he must properly present those claims to the California Supreme Court

within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed.

4. Once the California Supreme Court has issued a decision on Petitioner’s 

additional claims, and if he has not obtained relief in state court, Petitioner shall promptly

notify this Court within thirty days of the California Supreme Court’s decision. 

5. 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 he has exhausted his additional claims, the case will be

administratively re-opened. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

1/24/08

Case 5:06-cv-03162-JF Document 7 Filed 01/24/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Instructions to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Diaz162stay 4

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Miguel E. Diaz

T-83077

CA State Prison - Solano

2100 Peabody Rd.

Vacaville, CA 95687

Case 5:06-cv-03162-JF Document 7 Filed 01/24/08 Page 4 of 4