Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03199/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03199-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY D. SWIERSKI,

Petitioner,

v.

J.A. LIZARRAGA, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-03199-HSG (PR) 

ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND 

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE; 

GRANTING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 6

Gary D. Swierski, 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. Petitioner 

has also filed a motion to stay his federal petition while he exhausts his remedies in state court. 

BACKGROUND

The petition provides the following information: In 2012, a Santa Clara County jury found 

petitioner guilty of first degree murder. He was sentenced to twenty-five years to life in state 

prison. Petitioner appealed. In 2014, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. 

Petitioner filed a petition for review and a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, 

both of which were denied. He later filed a state habeas petition in Santa Clara County Superior 

Court, which remains pending. On June 14, 2016, petitioner filed the instant federal petition along 

with his motion to stay. 

DISCUSSION

A. Review of Petition 

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A 

Case 4:16-cv-03199-HSG Document 11 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue 

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it 

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez,

908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims appear cognizable 

under § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 

(9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

B. Motion for Stay

Petitioner has moved to stay these proceedings and hold his petition in abeyance so that he 

may exhaust state court remedies for his claims. As noted above, petitioner filed a state habeas 

petition in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which remains pending. Upon due

consideration, the Court GRANTS petitioner’s motion to stay and hold these proceedings in 

abeyance. Dkt. No. 6. Liberally construing the motion, it appears that petitioner has shown good 

cause for his failure to exhaust the claims before filing this action, the claims do not appear 

patently meritless, and there does not appear to be any intentionally dilatory litigation tactic by 

petitioner. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). Petitioner is cautioned that he 

must exhaust his claims in the California Supreme Court. See McNeeley v. Arave, 842 F.2d 230, 

231 (9th Cir. 1988) (petitioner must present to the highest state court all claims he wishes to raise 

in a federal habeas petition). Petitioner must also promptly return to federal court after his state 

court proceedings have concluded. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78.

The Court notes that petitioner’s federal claims were presented in two separate filings. See

dkt. nos. 5, 9. In the claims section of his petition, he also refers the Court to his petition for 

review to the California Supreme Court, which was submitted as an exhibit to the petition. See

dkt. no. 7. Given the piecemeal presentation of the claims, the Court is unclear which of 

petitioner’s many claims he seeks to assert as grounds for federal habeas relief. When petitioner 

moves to reopen the action following exhaustion, he must file an amended petition clearly 

identifying each claim that has been exhausted in state court that he seeks to raise in this action. 

Case 4:16-cv-03199-HSG Document 11 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay is GRANTED. This action is hereby STAYED while 

petitioner exhausts his claims in the state courts. 

2. If petitioner is not granted relief in state court, he may return to this Court and ask 

that the stay be lifted. To do so, petitioner must notify this court within thirty (30) days from the 

date the California Supreme Court completes its review of petitioner’s claims. The notice must 

clearly identify in the caption that it is to be filed in Case No. C 16-3199 HSG (PR). Upon 

petitioner’s filing of the notification that his claims have been exhausted, the stay will be lifted, 

the case will be reopened, and the Court will schedule further proceedings. 

3. The Clerk shall mail petitioner a copy of the Court’s form habeas petition along 

with this order.

4. If petitioner does not take any further action, this case will remain stayed and he 

will not receive any ruling from the Court on his petition.

5. Based on his affidavit of poverty, petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (dkt. no. 3) is GRANTED.

6. The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of this 

action. This has no legal effect; it is purely a statistical procedure.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 3 and 6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

9/28/2016

Case 4:16-cv-03199-HSG Document 11 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 3