Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00364/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00364-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Death Penalty)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JARROD TAYLOR, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-0364-WS-C

)

RICHARD F. ALLEN, etc., )

)

Respondent. )

 ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion to stay. (Doc. 5). The

accompanying memorandum, (Doc. 6), explains that his appeal from the trial court’s

denial of his Rule 32 motion was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeals because the

attorney signing the notice of appeal had not been admitted to practice in Alabama. The

petitioner has petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for writ of certiorari and, if the writ

is denied, he intends to file a petition under Rule 32.1(f), which the Court of Criminal

Appeals identified as his “remedy, if any.” The petitioner moves the Court to stay

proceedings on his federal petition pending resolution of these state proceedings.

“[I]t likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay and to

dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his

unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the

petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S.

269, 278 (2005). The petitioner’s is not a mixed petition, but the same principle applies

to all petitions. Thus, “[a] prisoner seeking state postconviction relief might avoid this

predicament [of having his federal petition declared untimely because his state

application for collateral review was not “properly filed” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)]

.... 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.

Case 1:06-cv-00364-WS-C Document 21 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 2
-2-

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (citing Rhines). 

“A petitioner’s reasonable confusion about whether a state filing would be timely

will ordinarily constitute ‘good cause’ for him to file in federal court,” Pace, 544 U.S. at

416, and there appears to be reasonable confusion as to whether either the notice of

appeal or a Rule 32.1(f) petition would be deemed timely. A claim is potentially

meritorious if it is not “plainly meritless,” Rhynes, 544 U.S. at 277, and the Court cannot

on this record conclude that all of the petitioner’s grounds for relief are plainly meritless. 

Finally, there is no suggestion in the record that the petitioner is requesting a stay with the

intent of improperly delaying consideration of his federal petition. 

Accordingly, the motion to stay is granted. This action is stayed pending

completion of the petitioner’s state collateral proceedings. The petitioner is ordered to

file and serve, on or before the tenth day of each month, a status report reflecting

developments in his state proceedings, including a statement as to whether they have been

concluded. 

 

 DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00364-WS-C Document 21 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 2