Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00101/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00101-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE WILLIAMS, JR., 

Petitioner,

v.

DAVEY, Warden,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-0101 EMC (pr)

ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 

Willie Williams, Jr., a prisoner at Corcoran State Prison, filed this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his conviction from the Alameda County Superior Court. Warden Davey

moved to dismiss on the ground that state court remedies had not been exhausted for one of the

claims, and Mr. Williams did not oppose the motion. On April 30, 2015, the Court granted the

motion to dismiss because of the failure to exhaust Claim 1, i.e., the claim that Mr. Williams

received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his lawyer did not contact witnesses to ask them

about coming in contact with Mr. Campbell and failed to request an instruction on voluntary

intoxication as applied to the special circumstance. The Court ordered Mr. Williams to choose how 

to deal with the problem of the unexhausted claim. See Docket # 14. Specifically, Mr. Williams

was directed to choose whether he wanted to: “(1) dismiss the unexhausted Claim 1 and go forward

in this action with only the exhausted claims, or (2) dismiss this action and return to state court to

exhaust all claims before filing a new federal petition presenting all of his claims, or (3) file a

motion for a stay of these proceedings while he exhausts his unexhausted claim in the California

Supreme Court.” Id. at 3. 

Case 3:14-cv-00101-EMC Document 18 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 Mr. Williams’ comment might be his way of asking for an attorney. The Court will not

appoint counsel for Mr. Williams because this action is being stayed and administratively closed. 

The next step in Mr. Williams’ efforts to challenge his state court conviction is to file a new habeas

action in state court. The federal court will not appoint counsel to represent a state prisoner in state

court. 

2

Mr. Williams responded in a confusing manner to the order. In Docket # 15, he indicated an

interest in option 2, i.e., a dismissal of the action. Docket # 15 at 2 (“I have no difficulty in trusting

option two, I do see difficulties in the court not reappointing counsel”).1

 In Docket # 16, however,

he indicated he wanted option 3, i.e., a stay so that he could exhaust state court remedies. Docket #

16 at 6 (“As I go through these proceeding I hope the district court give me a stay while I go through

the lower proceeding”). In light of the ambiguous responses as to whether Mr. Williams wanted a

stay or dismissal of this action (i.e., option 2 or option 3), and the significantly greater risk of losing

all chance at federal habeas review if this action is dismissed and he does not file a new federal

habeas petition before the expiration of the limitations period, the Court concludes that Mr.

Williams’ second request (i.e., in Docket # 16) controls. Mr. Williams has requested a stay and

elected to proceed under option 3 of the order at Docket # 14 so that he may attempt to exhaust state

court remedies for his Claim 1. 

The Court GRANTS Mr. Williams’ request to stay and hold these proceedings in abeyance. 

(Docket # 16 at 6.) This action is now STAYED and the Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY

CLOSE the action. Nothing further will take place in this action until Mr. Williams exhausts any

unexhausted claims and, within thirty days of doing so, moves to reopen this action, lift the Court’s

stay and proceed with consideration of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner must act

diligently to get his state court petition filed and promptly return to federal court after his state court

proceedings have concluded. If instead Petitioner prefers option 1, he shall file a statement so

stating within 30 days of the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2015 _________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00101-EMC Document 18 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 2