Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04759/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04759-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DANIEL LLOYD HOWARD,

Petitioner,

v.

W. SULLIVAN, Acting Warden,

Respondents.

Case No. 16-cv-04759-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY; 

DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO 

REFILING; STAYING HABEAS 

PROCEEDINGS, DIRECTING PETITIONER 

TO FILE QUARTERLY STATUS REPORTS;

AND DIRECTING CLERK TO 

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE UNTIL 

COURT ISSUES ORDER LIFTING STAY 

Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Before the Court is Respondent’s motion to dismiss certain sub-claims of the petition. 

Dkt. 41. Also before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings. Dkt. 52. 

In Petitioner’s motion to stay, he contends that he is currently “out to court” on his 

resentencing petition in state court, and that he expects to “be back and forth between county and 

state custody” until his state petition is resolved. Id. at 1. Petitioner explains that his resentencing 

petition is pursuant to California Penal Code § 1170.95, which provides that a petitioner who has 

been convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory may 

be entitled to resentencing if certain conditions are met. See Dkt. 45 (citing Cal. Penal Code 

§ 1170.95). Petitioner notes that he has had to submit multiple change-of-address notifications to 

this Court, and expects to have to submit “numerous more notifications in short spans of time.” 

Dkt. 52 at 1-2. Furthermore, he notes that “at short spans of time [he is] with or without [his] 

property,” including his legal papers. Id. at 2. He also contends that his resentencing petition is 

relevant to the instant petition. Id. Based on these circumstances, he asks for an indefinite stay, 

or, alternatively, a stay until his resentencing petition is resolved by the state superior court. Id. 

On February 3, 2020, Respondent filed a “Statement of Non-Opposition to [Petitioner’s] 

Motion for a Limited Stay of Proceedings.” Dkt. 54. Respondent states that while he opposes an 

Case 4:16-cv-04759-YGR Document 55 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 2
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

indefinite stay, he does not oppose a limited stay, stating as follows:

Although petitioner has no pending filing deadlines in this Court, we 

presume that he is concerned about delays in receiving and 

responding to any filings that may occur during his uncertain housing 

situation, i.e., an order on the motion to dismiss and briefing schedule 

for the answer and traverse on the remaining claims. Based on this 

stated reason, we do not oppose a limited stay until petitioner’s 

resentencing petition is resolved by the state superior court. We ask 

that petitioner be ordered to file updates with the Court every 60 days 

on the progress of his state petition, and to notify the Court 

immediately upon resolution of the petition by the state superior 

court, at which point the stay should be lifted.

Id. at 54.

Here, it appears that good cause exists for the Court to grant a limited stay of the habeas 

proceedings, but not an indefinite stay. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in 

part Petitioner’s request for a stay. Dkt. 52. These proceedings are hereby STAYED pending the 

resolution of Petitioner’s resentencing petition by the state superior court. Petitioner must file 

quarterly reports describing the progress of his state court proceedings, commencing twenty-eight 

(28) days from the date of this Order and continuing every ninety (90) days thereafter until his 

resentencing petition is resolved by the state superior court. He must also attach to his status 

reports copies of the cover page of any document that he files with or receives from the state 

courts relating to his resentencing petition.

The Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of 

this action. Nothing further will take place in this action until Petitioner receives a decision by the 

state superior court stating that his resentencing petition is resolved and, within twenty-eight (28) 

days of doing so, moves to reopen the action, lift the Court’s stay and amend the stayed petition, if 

necessary.

Respondent’s pending motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice to refiling after the

stay is lifted and the case is reopened. Dkt. 41.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 41 and 52.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

March 3, 2020

Case 4:16-cv-04759-YGR Document 55 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 2