Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01422/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01422-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Ryan Lawrence, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-1422-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

On June 1, 2006 Petitioner Mark Ryan Lawrence ("Petitioner") filed a pro se Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt.# 1). The matter was

referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson who has issued a Report and

Recommendation that recommends that the Petition be stayed and held in abeyance.

Magistrate Judge Anderson’s Petition addresses Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Dkt.#6) and

Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Abey the Petition. (Dkt.#15). Neither Petitioner

nor Respondents have filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

or recommendations to which objection is made"). "Failure to object to a magistrate judge's

Case 2:06-cv-01422-GMS Document 18 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 4
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 -

recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones v. Wood, 207

F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case and finds

itself in agreement with the Magistrate Judge that the Petition should be stayed and held in

abeyance. This determination is supported by the fact that Petitioner presents both exhausted

and unexhausted claims before this Court for federal habeas corpus review. Most notably is

Ground IV of the Petition which is based upon newly discovered evidence from a witness, Mr.

Daryl Jones, to the crimes occurring on August 18, 1996. On October 18, 2006, the Maricopa

County Superior court found that the newly discovered evidence presented in Petitioner’s

third request for post-conviction relief presented a colorable claim and scheduled an

evidentiary hearing. The trial court held that if the "allegations in the Affidavit of Daryl

Lemar Jones are true, the outcome of one or more of the defendant’s convictions may have

been different..." (Respondents’ Motion, Dkt.#15, Exhibit F). As such, Ground IV of

Petitioner’s Petition has clearly not been exhausted in state court. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,

526 U.S. 838, 844 (1999) (stating that § 2254 relief is not available "unless the applicant has

exhausted the remedies available in courts of the State."). As such, the Petition is mixed in

that is presents both exhausted and unexhausted claims. 

In light of the nature of the mixed petition, and based upon the recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, it appears that the proper course of action, subject to the Court’s discretion,

is to stay the proceedings to allow the unexhausted claim to be addressed in Maricopa County

Superior Court. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 273 (2005) (finding that AEDPA does

not deprive the district court of the authority to stay a petition for writ of habeas corpus where

it would be a proper exercise of discretion). The three factors to be considered are whether:

(1) the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust; (2) petitioner's unexhausted claims

are potentially meritorious; and (3) there is no indication that petitioner engaged in

intentionally dilatory litigation tactics." Id. In considering these factors, they support a stay

Case 2:06-cv-01422-GMS Document 18 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 4
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 -

of this action. First, as addressed by the Magistrate Judge, the Court cannot find fault with

the filing of the instant Petition to ensure that Petitioner’s Petition was not time barred. See

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 413-14 (2005) (encouraging petitioner’s who are

"reasonably confused" about their state’s timeliness rules to file "protective" petitions in

federal court to avoid a statute of limitations problem). Second, although the Court expresses

no position as to the merits of Petitioner’s unexhausted claim, the claim appears "potentially"

meritorious as the state court has already concluded. Third, there is no evidence to suggest

that Petitioner has acted in a dilatory manner through his litigation tactics. In light of these

considerations, the Court will stay the proceedings and hold the Petition in abeyance. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting in full the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge. (Dkt.#17). These proceedings are stayed and the Petition will be held in

abeyance. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Petitioner’s Motion to Stay. (Dkt.#6). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Respondents’

Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Abey the Petition. (Dkt.#15). The Motion is denied to the

extent Respondents’ seek dismissal and granted to the extent Respondents’ request a stay and

to hold the Petition in abeyance. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will file a status report with the Court

no later than thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed addressing the status of the state

court proceedings; and every ninety (90) days thereafter. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that following final action by the state courts,

Petitioner will be allowed thirty (30) days within which to file a motion for leave to amend

the instant Petition to include the newly exhausted claim. 

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01422-GMS Document 18 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon lifting of the stay in this case, proceedings

will be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation on the merits.

DATED this 31st day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01422-GMS Document 18 Filed 02/06/07 Page 4 of 4