Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01350/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01350-0/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

For the Northern District of California

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAIAH THOMPSON BONILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

W. A. DUNCAN, warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-1350 SI (pr)

ORDER STAYING ACTION AND TO

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE ACTION 

Petitioner, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2002 conviction in Alameda County Superior

Court. Petitioner also filed a "motion for stay and abeyance, alternatively leave to amend" in which

he explained that he had recently obtained access to pretrial records not earlier available to him

and discovered therein some new claims that he wanted to present in his federal habeas action but

needed to first exhaust state court remedies for them. He further explained that he had already

filed habeas petitions in the trial and appellate courts and was preparing a habeas petition to file

in the California Supreme Court. Petitioner satisfied the requirements in Rhines v. Weber, No.

03-9046, slip op. at 7-8 (U.S. Mar. 30, 2005), for a stay of his habeas action in that he showed

good cause for the delayed presentation of the claims to the state courts, showed he acted

promptly to present his claims in state court once discovered and asserted that the claims are for

constitutional errors. The motion for a stay and abeyance is GRANTED. (Docket # 4.)

Case 3:05-cv-01350-SI Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 2
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

This action is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Nothing further will take place in

this action until petitioner exhausts the unexhausted claims, and, within thirty days of doing so,

moves to reopen this action, lift the court’s stay and amend the petition to add the newly-exhausted

claims. If petitioner does not return within thirty days of exhausting the unexhausted claims, the

action may be dismissed. See id. at 7-8; Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1071 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 123 S. Ct. 2094 (2003). 

Petitioner's motion to exceed the normal page limits is DENIED as unnecessary as there

is not a limit on the number of pages for a habeas petition. (Docket # 3.)

Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 5.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June _23__, 2005 S/Susan Illston 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01350-SI Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2