Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06151/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06151-0/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)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENZEL WARFIELD, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6151 REC WMW HC

Petitioner, ORDER RE MOTION FOR STAY

vs. (Doc. 20)

A. K. SCRIBNER, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 10, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for a stay of these proceedings pending

the exhaustion of additional claims in state court.

A district court has discretion to stay a petition which it may validly consider on the merits.

Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1534, 2005 WL 711587 (2005); Calderon v. United

States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1998);Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268,

1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). However, the Supreme Court recently held that this

discretion is circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).

Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1534. In light of AEDPA’s objectives, “stay and abeyance [is] available only in

limited circumstances” and “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.” Id. at 1535. Even if Petitioner were

to demonstrate good cause for that failure, “the district court would abuse its discretion if it were to

Case 1:03-cv-06151-LJO-WMW Document 23 Filed 11/09/05 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

27

28

2

grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.” Id.

Unfortunately, the Rhines does not discuss what circumstances would constitute “good cause”

for a petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims in state court before initiating his federal habeas corpus

proceeding. In the present case, Petitioner provides a declaration stating that the claims are newly

discovered. This court is not prepared to find that this does not constitute good cause. See Fetterly v.

Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301 (9th Cir. 1993) (abused of discretion found when court denied stay to

exhaust newly discovered claims). Further, the fact that Petitioner has already filed his petition with

the California Supreme Court presenting his newly discovered claims weighs towards supporting the

AEDPA’s objective of encouraging finality and undermines AEDPA’s objective of streamlining federal

habeas proceedings. Id. at 1534. Finally, Respondent has not opposed Petitioner’s request for a stay.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for stay of the proceedings is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner

is HEREBY ORDERED to file a status report regarding his habeas corpus petition now pending in the

California Supreme Court 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06151-LJO-WMW Document 23 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2