Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02454/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02454-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR M. COLE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2454 GEB DAD P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Pursuant to an order filed in this action on November 27, 2006, petitioner

submitted a signed in forma pauperis application. The application filed December 14, 2006,

together with the certificate and trust account statement attached to petitioner’s initial application

filed November 6, 2006, demonstrates that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this suit. 

Accordingly, petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction entered in the Sacramento County

Superior Court on June 13, 2003. Petitioner alleges that he had a jury trial, was convicted of first

degree burglary, attempted first degree robbery, assault with a firearm, second degree robbery,

Case 2:06-cv-02454-GEB-DAD Document 8 Filed 12/20/06 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

2

and assault with the use of a firearm, and was sentenced to a term of 29 years and 8 months in

state prison. Petitioner alleges that his conviction was affirmed by the California Court of

Appeal on September 28, 2004, and the California Supreme Court on a date unknown to

petitioner.

Petitioner alleges three grounds for relief in this court: (1) denial of his right to

contest consecutive sentencing under Apprendi and Blakely; (2) insufficient evidence to support

conviction of assault with a firearm; and (3) a Miranda rights violation by the court in allowing a

non-Mirandized statement into evidence at trial. Petitioner appear to allege that he intends to file

a state habeas petition raising ineffective assistance of counsel but had not yet done so when he

filed his federal petition because he believed his deadline was running out for filing in federal

court. Attached to the back of petitioner’s habeas petition is a motion for stay and abeyance. 

Petitioner asserts that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not exhausted on direct

appeal because he lacked evidence to present to the state courts due to a prison transfer. 

Petitioner requests a stay of this action so that he can amend his petition to add newly exhausted

claims at a later time.

District courts have the discretion to stay federal habeas proceedings while a

petitioner presents unexhausted claims to the state courts where there is good cause for the

petitioner’s failure to exhaust all claims in state court before filing a federal habeas petition. 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). “[S]tay and abeyance should be available only in

limited circumstances,” and a stay “is only appropriate when the district court determines there is

good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.” Id. The district

court should not grant a stay if the claims are plainly meritless. Id. Federal proceedings may not

be stayed indefinitely, and reasonable time limits must be imposed on a petitioner’s return to

state court to exhaust additional claims. Id. at 277-78.

Petitioner’s habeas petition and motion for stay and abeyance will be served on

respondents, and respondents will be directed to respond to petitioner’s motion. After the motion

Case 2:06-cv-02454-GEB-DAD Document 8 Filed 12/20/06 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

has been briefed, the court will determine whether petitioner had good cause for failing to

exhaust all claims before filing this action, whether petitioner’s unexhausted claim is potentially

meritorious, and whether petitioner acted with diligence. See Calderon v. United States Dist.

Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987 nn.8 & 11 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to make a showing of

diligence in pursuing additional claims may foreclose a stay).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s December 14, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis, as

supported by the previous application filed November 6, 2006, is granted;

2. Respondents shall file and serve a response to petitioner’s motion for stay and

abeyance within thirty days after this order is served;

3. Petitioner shall file and serve a reply to respondents’ response within thirty

days after respondents serve the response; and

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 upon Michael Patrick

Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

DATED: December 19, 2006.

DAD:13

cole2454.motstay

Case 2:06-cv-02454-GEB-DAD Document 8 Filed 12/20/06 Page 3 of 3