Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00357/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00357-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN RAKER DICKEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr., Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-06-357-AWI-P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Order Regarding Stay and

Abeyance, Directing Petitioner to

Show Good Cause

On March 30, 2006, Petitioner Colin Raker Dickey (“Dickey”) initiated

federal habeas proceedings challenging his state conviction and death sentence. 

Dickey was appointed counsel on August 15, 2006. Dickey was granted equitable

tolling of the one-year statute of limitations for the time he was without counsel

during his federal proceedings. Dickey filed his federal petition July 10, 2007. 

Counsel for Dickey and counsel for Respondent Robert L. Ayers, Jr. (“the

Warden”) met and conferred, and filed a Joint Statement on Exhaustion January

Case 1:06-cv-00357-JLT-SAB Document 61 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 2
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

 The pertinent part of footnote 5 states: “The Court may determine abeyance 1

is appropriate without the necessity of petitionerfiling a motion. See Rhines v. Weber,

544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005) (holding a district court retains discretion to stay federal

proceedings pending the resolution of state habeas proceedings).”

OreMtnAbeyDky 2

15, 2008, agreeing that fifteen claims with various subclaims were not exhausted,

but disagreeing about the exhaustion status of five claims with various

subclaims. The Warden filed a motion to dismiss Dickey’s federal petition based

on failure to exhaust state remedies for all claims on March 3, 2008.

Dickey was directed, consistent with this Court’s practice, that a response

to the Warden’s motion to dismiss was not necessary. See p. 17, n.5 , Guide to 1

Case Management and Budgeting in Capital Habeas Cases, Eastern District of

California, Fresno Division, at www.caed.uscourts.gov, under Fresno, Attorney

Info, Forms. The Warden filed a response on March 14, 2008, opposing stay and

abeyance in this case because Dickey has not made a showing of good cause for

this failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.

In light of the Warden’s opposition, it is determined that Dickey is required

to make a showing of justification under Rhines for stay and abeyance of his

federal proceedings to exhaust state remedies. Dickey’s showing shall be filed on

or before April 14, 2008. The Warden may file an opposition to stay and

abeyance on or before May 14, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

b64h1h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00357-JLT-SAB Document 61 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 2