Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02478/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02478-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-2478 RS (PR)

ORDER STAYING PETITION

*E-Filed 10/19/15*

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

FRANK J. SAVOY,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN, 

Respondent. /

No. C 15-2478 RS (PR)

ORDER STAYING PETITION

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his state convictions. To this end, he has

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion to stay the action so that he can

exhaust his claims in state court. For the reasons stated herein, the motion for a stay is

GRANTED and the action is STAYED. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 2011, an Alameda County Superior Court jury convicted

petitioner of murder, armed first degree robbery, forcible rape, forcible oral copulation and

attempted murder. He was sentenced to 78 years to life in state prison.

Case 3:15-cv-02478-RS Document 10 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-2478 RS (PR)

2 ORDER STAYING PETITION

DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks a stay so that he can exhaust certain claims that appellate counsel

failed to raise on appeal. Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in

federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to

exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by

presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of

each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose

v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515–16 (1982). In fact, a federal district court may not grant the writ

unless state court remedies are exhausted or there is either “an absence of available state

corrective process” or such process has been “rendered ineffective.” See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(1)(A)–(B). If available state remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims,

the district court must dismiss the petition. See Lundy, 455 U.S. at 510. 

A district court may stay a mixed habeas petition, i.e., a petition containing both

exhausted and unexhausted claims, to allow the petitioner to exhaust state court remedies as 

to those claims that have not yet been presented to the state’s highest court. See Rhines v.

Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277–78 (2005). In Rhines, the Supreme Court discussed the

stay-and-abeyance procedure, explaining that a stay and abeyance “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,” the claims are not meritless, and there are no intentionally dilatory

litigation tactics by the petitioner. Id. If the stay is granted, the petitioner does not have to

worry that his newly-exhausted claims will be barred by the statute of limitations because 

those claims remain pending in federal court. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1139, 1140. (9th

Cir. 2009). 

Petitioner’s motion for a Rhines stay is GRANTED, good causing appearing therefor. 

The action is STAYED so as to allow petitioner to exhaust his claims in state court. Nothing

further will take place in this action until the Court decides further action is appropriate, or

until petitioner exhausts the unexhausted claims and, within thirty days of doing so, moves to

Case 3:15-cv-02478-RS Document 10 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-2478 RS (PR)

3 ORDER STAYING PETITION

reopen this action and to lift the stay. The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the

file, and terminate Docket No. 3. 

The Court notes that the filing fee has been paid. Petitioner’s motions to proceed in

forma pauperis are DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02478-RS Document 10 Filed 10/19/15 Page 3 of 3