Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02948/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02948-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL NAGY,

Petitioner, No. 2:11-cv-2948 JFM (HC)

vs.

D. DAVEY, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has moved for an extension of time to

file a traverse and for appointment of counsel.

Petitioner challenges his 2009 conviction on multiple state criminal charges. This

action is proceeding on petitioner’s original petition, filed November 7, 2011. Petitioner raises

eight claims in his petition. In the answer, filed February 22, 2012, respondent has addressed

only the first four of those claims. Respondent contends, inter alia, that petitioner’s claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel, raised as Ground One in the petition, is unexhausted. 

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

/////

Case 2:11-cv-02948-WBS-DB Document 19 Filed 04/06/12 Page 1 of 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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 1

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

 It is unclear whether petitioner has exhausted one or more of the claims identified as 2

Grounds E through H of the petition.

 Petitioner is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed on an amended petition raising only 3

exhausted claims he will risk forfeiting consideration of the unexhausted claims in this or any other

federal court. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991);see also Rose, 455 U.S. at 520-21; Rule

9(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

 Petitioner is further cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of

limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year

period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion

of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations

is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is

pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

2

be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, 1

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v.

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

After reviewing the record in this action, the court finds that petitioner has failed

to exhaust state court remedies at least as to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.2

Accordingly, the petition is a mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. 

The court cannot proceed on the petition at this time. Good cause appearing, petitioner will be

granted thirty days to file, as appropriate, a motion for stay and abeyance pending exhaustion of

state court remedies as to any unexhausted claims pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269

(2005) or King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 130 S.Ct. 214 (2009).

In the alternative petitioner may, within the same thirty day period, file an amended petition

raising only exhausted claims. Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a traverse will be 3

denied without prejudice.

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas

proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C.

Case 2:11-cv-02948-WBS-DB Document 19 Filed 04/06/12 Page 2 of 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

3

§ 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice

so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does

not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present

time. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel will be denied without

prejudice.

In accordance with the above, Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file

either an appropriate motion to stay these proceedings pending exhaustion of state court remedies

as to any unexhausted claims or an amended petition;

2. Petitioner’s March 28, 2012 motion for an extension of time to file a traverse is

denied without prejudice; and

3. Petitioner’s March 28, 2012 motion for appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice.

DATED: April 4, 2012.

12/md

nagy2948.110+111

Case 2:11-cv-02948-WBS-DB Document 19 Filed 04/06/12 Page 3 of 3