Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01105/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01105-6/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL GARCIA, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

R. A. HOREL, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-01105 AWI GSA HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 

[Doc. #25]

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO WITHDRAW UNEXHAUSTED

CLAIM

[Doc. #26]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On July 17, 2007, Petitioner filed his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California. By order of the Court dated July 26,

2007, the petition was transferred to the Eastern District. On August 22, 2007, the Magistrate Judge

dismissed the petition with leave to amend for failure to specify his grounds for relief. On September

26, 2007, Petitioner filed an amended petition wherein he raised the following four grounds for

relief: (1) Petitioner claims the trial court incorrectly prevented him from presenting a defense of

third party liability; (2) He claims the trial court erroneously failed to grant defense counsel’s request

that the jury be given accomplice instructions; (3) He claims he received ineffective assistance of

Case 1:07-cv-01105-VRW Document 27 Filed 03/07/08 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

counsel for counsel’s failure to clarify Petitioner’s objection to the testimony of a witness who had

testified Petitioner said he shot a little kid; and (4) He claims the evidence of a videotape was

erroneously admitted. Following a review of the amended petition, the Magistrate Judge determined

that Ground Four was unexhausted and Petitioner was granted leave to withdraw the unexhausted

claim, which he did. The Magistrate Judge then directed Respondent to file a response to the

petition.

On December 27, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as a mixed petition

containing exhausted and unexhausted claims. Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s motion

on January 14, 2008.

On January 28, 2008, the District Court issued its Order granting Respondent’s motion to

dismiss, dismissing the petition without prejudice, denying Petitioner’s motion for stay, and granting

Petitioner thirty (30) days to file a motion to withdraw the unexhausted claim. 

On February 19, 2008, Petitioner filed a second motion to stay. He subsequently filed a

motion to withdraw the unexhausted claim on February 22, 2008. 

DISCUSSION

A district court has discretion to stay a petition which it may validly consider on the merits.

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d

981, 987-88 (9 Cir. 1998); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 th

U.S. 1102 (1997). However, the Supreme Court recently held that this discretion is circumscribed by

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276. In

light of AEDPA’s objectives, “stay and abeyance [is] available only in limited circumstances” and

“is only appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s

failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.” Id. at 277. Even if Petitioner were to demonstrate

good cause for that failure, “the district court would abuse its discretion if it were to grant him a stay

when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.” Id.

In this case, the Court does not find good cause to excuse Petitioner’s failure. Petitioner had

multiple opportunities to present this claim to the state courts: it could have been raised in his

petition for review to the California Supreme Court on December 18, 2006, or in the subsequent

Case 1:07-cv-01105-VRW Document 27 Filed 03/07/08 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

petition for writ of habeas corpus to the California Supreme Court on July 6, 2007. Staying the case

at this juncture in order to allow Petitioner to pursue a third round of review in the state courts

frustrates AEDPA’s objective of encouraging finality and undermines AEDPA’s objective of

streamlining federal habeas proceedings. Id. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for stay of the

proceedings is hereby DENIED. 

In the alternative, Petitioner requests that the unexhausted claim be dismissed so he may

proceed with the exhausted claims in this Court. Petitioner’s request will be GRANTED.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion for stay of proceedings is DENIED;

2. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the unexhausted claim is GRANTED; and

3. The matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01105-VRW Document 27 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 3