Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02675/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02675-0/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

1

 Petitioner’s unexhausted claim is that his sentence is unlawful because one of his prior

convictions, deemed a “strike” under California “Three Strikes Law,” is not in fact a “strike.”

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE F. MCKAY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2675 GEB KJM P

vs.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

Petitioner asks that the court stay this matter while he exhausts state court

remedies with respect to a single claim. He has already begun the exhaustion process.

Petitioner reasonably asserts that he is not certain whether California courts will

find that his state petitions are untimely. In Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416-17 (2005),

the Supreme Court found that a habeas petitioner’s reasonable confusion about whether a state

filing would be timely would ordinarily constitute good cause for the petitioner to file in federal

court. Considering this, and that petitioner’s unexhausted claim is potentially meritorious,1

 the

Case 2:06-cv-02675-GEB -KJM Document 6 Filed 04/10/07 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

2

court will recommend that petitioner’s request for a stay be granted. See Rhines v. Weber, 544

U.S. 269, 277 (2005).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s December 9, 2006 request for a stay be granted;

2. This matter be stayed;

3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close this case; and

4. Petitioner be required to inform the court within thirty days of the completion

of the exhaustion of state court remedies.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 9, 2007. 

1/mp

mcka2675.sty(12.9.06)

Case 2:06-cv-02675-GEB -KJM Document 6 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 2