Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08137/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08137-3/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)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Daniel Satala, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 08-8137-PCT-MHM (MHB)

ORDER

Petitioner Robert Daniel Satala, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

(Doc. #1.) 

Petitioner was convicted in Navajo County Superior Court, case #SO900CR0087009649, of kidnaping and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to consecutive terms

of imprisonment of 21 and 20 years. In his Petition, Petitioner names Dora Schriro as

Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an additional Respondent. Petitioner raises

three grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner was denied a fair trial, in violation of the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments; (2) Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective in violation of the

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (3) Petitioner’s appellate counsel was ineffective in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner states that he presented Grounds One and

Two to the Arizona Court of Appeals. It is not clear whether Ground Three has been

exhausted.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings and hold in

abeyance. (Doc. #4.) In his Motion to Stay, Petitioner requests that if Ground Three is not

Case 3:08-cv-08137-MHM Document 25 Filed 09/01/09 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 -

properly exhausted that the Court stay consideration of the Petition until Petitioner has

presented his claims in Ground Three to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The stay and

abeyance of a “mixed petition” – one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims–

is appropriate only when (1) the petitioner has good cause for first failing to exhaust, (2) his

unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and (3) there is no indication that the

petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S.

269, 277-78 (2005). “[I]f a petitioner presents a district court with a mixed petition and the

court determines that stay and abeyance is inappropriate, the court should allow the petitioner

to delete the unexhausted claims and to proceed with the exhausted claims if dismissal of the

entire petition would unreasonably impair the petitioner’s right to obtain federal relief.” Id.

at 278.

The Court will deny Petitioner’s motion to stay as premature and with leave to refile

once the Court has evaluated and made a determination as to which grounds for relief set

forth in his habeas petition, in any, are unexhausted. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings and hold in abeyance

(Doc. #4) is DENIED as premature and with leave to refile.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2009.

Case 3:08-cv-08137-MHM Document 25 Filed 09/01/09 Page 2 of 2