Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05217/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05217-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE OLIVERA,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN SCRIBBER, Warden,

Respondent.

CV F-04-5217 OWW WMW HC

ORDER GRANTING STAY

AND REQUIRING

PETITIONER TO FILE

STATUS REPORT EVERY

THIRTY DAYS

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. On July 22, 2005, Petitioner filed a request for a stay

of these proceedings pending the exhaustion of his state remedies as to additional claims not raised

in his present petition. 

On August 30, 2005, the court entered an order granting Petitioner a temporary stay of these

proceedings. The court ordered Petitioner to file a status report regarding his petition for writ of

habeas corpus filed in the California Supreme Court on May 26, 2005. On September 13, 2005,

Petitioner responded to the court’s order, stating that he was not yet been informed by the California

Supreme Court of any decision on his case.

A district court does have discretion to hold in abeyance a petition containing only exhausted

claims.Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618,620 (9th Cir. 1998);Calderon

Case 1:04-cv-05217-OWW -WMW Document 33 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 3
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

v. United States District Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d. 981, 988 (9th Cir 1998); Greenawalt, 105 F.3d

1268, 1274 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). However, the Ninth Circuit has held

that its holding in Taylor in no way granted "district courts carte blanche to stay even fully

exhausted habeas petitions." Taylor, 134 F.3d at 988 n.11. Rather, a stay should be granted in

exceptional cases only: the claims the petition seeks to pursue must be cognizable under § 2254;

there must be a likelihood of prejudice to the petitioner should a stay be denied; and there must be

no evidence that the motion for a stay is brought to delay, to vex, or harass, or that the request is an

abuse of the writ. See, Fetterly v. Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301-02 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513

U.S. 914 (1994); see also, Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9th Cir. 1997). In addition,

a district cannot stay habeas proceedings indefinitely pending exhaustion in state court as to do so

would make this Court’s compliance with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s

requirement for prompt resolution of § 2254 petitions impossible. 

In the present case, the court finds that the claims Petitioner seeks to pursue are cognizable

under Section 2254, that there is a likelihood of prejudice to Petitioner if a stay is denied because

the statute of limitations may run on his claims, and there is no evidence that Petitioner seeks this

stay of any improper purpose. See Olvera v. Giurbino, 371 F.3d 569, 572 (9th Cir. 2004)

(district court abused its discretion by failing to allow defendant to stay his habeas petition so that

he could properly exhaust claims without having his petition bared by the statute of limitations).

The court concludes, therefore, that the issuance of a stay is proper in this case to allow Petitioner

to exhaust his claims before the California Supreme Court. 

Accordingly, Petitioner is HEREBY GRANTED a stay of this case until his petition for writ

of habeas corpus now pending before the California Supreme Court is resolved. Petitioner shall file

with the court and serve on Respondent a status report every thirty (30) days from the date of service

ofthis order, informing the court and Respondent whether his petition before the California Supreme

Court has been resolved. Failure to keep the court informed of the status of the petition before the

California Supreme Court will result in the lifting of the stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 1:04-cv-05217-OWW -WMW Document 33 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Dated: September 16, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05217-OWW -WMW Document 33 Filed 09/19/05 Page 3 of 3