Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01252-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS WHITAKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

WARDEN VIRGA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:11-01252-LJO-JLT-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR STAY (Doc. 3)

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO FILE

STATUS REPORTS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On July 29, 2011, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 1). The petition contained the

following four grounds for relief: (1) The admission of prior instances of misconduct at trial violated

Petitioner’s right to due process; (2) the jury instruction regarding how the jury is to consider a

common plan or scheme violated Petitioner’s right to a fair trial; (3) instructing the jury with

CALCRIM No. 207 was error; and (4) the conviction was obtained with the use of coerced

confessions in violation of the federal constitution. (Doc. 1) 

Petitioner has attached to his petition copies of the briefs submitted in his direct appeal. 

From those documents, it appears that only grounds one and two were presented to the California

Case 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 5
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

Supreme Court and are therefore fully exhausted. Grounds three and four were only presented to the

California Court of Appeal. 

In the instant stay motion, filed concurrently with the petition, Petitioner seeks a stay in

order to exhaust claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to investigate and against

his appellate counsel for failure to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (Doc. 3). Petitioner

also intends to exhaust ground four in the present petition. Petitioner does not indicate whether he

intends to exhaust ground three. 

DISCUSSION

Traditionally, a district court has had the discretion to stay a petition which it may validly

consider on the merits. Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-988 (9th

Cir. 1998); Greenawalt v. Stewar7, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1002 th

(1997). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that Taylor in no way granted “district courts carte

blanche to stay even fully exhausted habeas petitions.” Taylor, 134 F.3d at 988 n. 11. Granting a

stay is appropriate where there is no intention on the part of the Petitioner to delay or harass and in

order to avoid piecemeal litigation. Id. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that it is proper

for a district court, in its discretion, to hold a petition containing only exhausted claims in abeyance

in order to permit the petitioner to return to state court to exhaust his state remedies. Kelly v. Small,

315 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9 Cir. 2004); Ford v. Hubbard, 305 F.3d 875, 882-883 (9 Cir. 2002); James th th

v. Pliler, 269 F.3d 1124, 1126-1127 (9 Cir. 2002); Taylor, 134 F.3d 981. th

Notwithstanding the foregoing, until recently, federal case law continued to require that the

Court dismiss “mixed” petitions containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509 (1982). However, on March 30, 2005, the United States Supreme Court decided

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). Recognizing that “[a]s a result of the interplay between

AEDPA’s 1-year statute of limitations and Lundy’s dismissal requirement, petitioners who come to 1

federal court with ‘mixed’ petitions run the risk of forever losing their opportunity for any federal

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1244(d).

1

2

Case 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/30/11 Page 2 of 5
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

review of their unexhausted claims,” the Supreme Court held that federal courts may now issue “stay

and abey” orders under appropriate circumstances to permit petitioners to exhaust unexhausted

claims before proceeding with their federal petitions. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276-277. In so holding,

the Supreme Court noted that the procedure should be “available only in limited circumstances.”

544 U.S. at 277. Specifically, the Court said it was appropriate only when (1) good cause exists for

petitioner’s failure to exhaust; (2) petitioner’s unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless” and (3)

there is no indication that petitioner engaged in “abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay.” Id. at

277-278; Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9 Cir. 2005). When a petitioner has met these th

requirements, his interest in obtaining federal review of his claims outweighs the competing interests

in finality and speedy resolution of federal petitions. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278. 

In so holding, the Supreme Court noted that, while the procedure should be “available only

in limited circumstances,” it “likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay

and to dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his

unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the petitioner engaged

in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-279. When a petitioner has met

these requirements, his interest in obtaining federal review of his claims outweighs the competing

interests in finality and speedy resolution of federal petitions. Id. 

Here, Petitioner has timely filed a federal habeas petition containing two exhausted claims

and two other claims that appear to be unexhausted. Specifically, grounds one and two appear to

have been raised in the California Supreme Court in the petition for review. However, grounds three

and four appear only to have been raised in the California Court of Appeal and are therefore

unexhausted. Along with the petition, Petitioner promptly filed the instant motion for stay of

proceedings to exhaust unexhausted claims and indicates that he wishes to exhaust several claims

regarding ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel as well ground four in the instant

petition. (Doc. 3).

Thus, it appears to the Court that Petitioner is attempting to exhaust his unexhausted claims

in a timely and expeditious manner; there is no indication that, in seeking this stay and abeyance,

3

Case 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/30/11 Page 3 of 5
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

Petitioner intends to harass or delay the proceedings, nor does it appear that Petitioner is engaging in

dilatory conduct. From the foregoing, it appears that good cause existed for Petitioner’s failure to

exhaust all claims prior to filing the instant petition, that Petitioner is proceeding in good faith, that

no prejudice would inure to the parties by granting the requested stay, and that an outright dismissal

of the instant “mixed” petition might well jeopardize Petitioner’s access to this Court because of

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. 

Therefore, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the proceedings and will

hold the petition for writ of habeas corpus in abeyance pending exhaustion of Petitioner’s state

remedies as to the claims referred to above.

However, the Court will not indefinitely hold the petition in abeyance. See Taylor, 134

F.3d at 988 n. 11. No later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this Order, Petitioner

must (1) initiate habeas corpus proceedings in state court to exhaust the claims referred to in

Petitioner’s motion for stay, and (2) inform the Court of the status of the habeas proceedings in state

court, including the date or dates of all habeas corpus cases filed in state court, the case numbers, and

any outcomes. 

2

Further, Petitioner must proceed diligently to pursue his state court remedies, and every

sixty (60) days after the filing of the initial status report, Petitioner must file a new status report

regarding the status of his state court habeas corpus proceedings. Following final action by the state

courts, Petitioner will be allowed thirty (30) days within which to notify the Court that all of his

claims are exhausted and to provide the Court with documentation to that effect, including a copy of

the California Supreme Court decision regarding his state habeas claims. Failure to comply with

these instructions and time allowances will result in this Court vacating the stay nunc pro tunc to the

date of this order. Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1071.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

The filing should be entitled “Status Report.”

2

4

Case 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/30/11 Page 4 of 5
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. Petitioner’s motion to stay the instant proceedings on his habeas petition (Doc. 3), is

GRANTED;

2. Proceedings on the instant petition are STAYED pending exhaustion of Petitioner’s

state remedies;

3. Petitioner is ORDERED to file a status report within thirty (30) days of the date of

service of this order, advising the Court of the status of all pending habeas proceedings

filed in state court, the dates when such cases were filed, the issues raised, and any

outcomes;

4. Petitioner is ORDERED to file a new status report every sixty (60) days after the filing

of the initial status report; 

5. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days following the final order of the state courts

within which to notify the Court that all of his claims are fully exhausted and to provide the

Court with documentation to substantiate that all of his claims are exhausted;

6. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the case. The

Court will notify the Clerk of the Court to administratively re-open the case when and if the

stay is lifted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2011 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

5

Case 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/30/11 Page 5 of 5