Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-04797/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-04797-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos L. Robinson
Petitioner
Warden
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

CARLOS L. ROBINSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

WARDEN,

Respondent. /

No. C 14-4797 NJV (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO STAY AND

ADMINISTRATIVELY

CLOSING CASE

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner presented three claims that appear to be

exhausted and he also presented an unexhausted claim regarding the trial court

erroneously denying a Marsden motion. Petitioner was informed he could either file a

motion to stay pending exhaustion or proceed only with the exhausted claims. (Doc. 8) 

Petitioner has filed a motion to stay. (Doc. 14.)

The United States Supreme Court has held that the district court may stay mixed

habeas petitions to allow the petitioner to exhaust in state court. Rhines v. Weber, 

544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). The district court's discretion to stay a mixed petition is

circumscribed by AEDPA's stated purposes of reducing delay in the execution of criminal

sentences and encouraging petitioners to seek relief in the state courts before filing their

claims in federal court. Id. at 277. Because the use of a stay and abeyance procedure has

the potential to undermine these dual purposes of AEDPA, its use is only appropriate

where the district court has first determined that there was good cause for the petitioner's

failure to exhaust the claims in state court and that the claims are potentially meritorious. 

Id. Moreover, where granting a stay, the district court must effectuate the timeliness

Case 1:14-cv-04797-NJV Document 16 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 is informed that the exhaustion requirement is satisfied by providing the

highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 

2

concerns in AEDPA by placing "reasonable limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and

back." Id. at 278. Thus, under Rhines, a district court must stay a mixed petition only if:

(1) the petitioner has “good cause” for his failure to exhaust his claims in state court; (2) the

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

petitioner intentionally engaged in dilatory litigation tactics. Id. at 278.

In explanation for his failure to fully exhaust his claim in state court, Petitioner states

that he was preventing from raising his claim due to his own ignorance and confusion about

the law and the status of his case. After reviewing Petitioner’s claims, the court find

Petitioner’s explanation, although minimal, to be sufficient to meet the good cause standard

discussed above. The court further finds that petitioner’s unexhausted claim is potentially

meritorious and that there is no indication that he intentionally delayed the resolution of his

claims. Accordingly, the court will grant a stay pursuant to Rhines.

1

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay (Docket No. 14) is GRANTED and this case is

STAYED to allow petitioner to present his unexhausted claim in state court. If petitioner is

not granted relief in state court, he may return to this court and ask that the stay be lifted. 

2. Petitioner’s request for documents is DENIED because this case is now stayed. 

3. The stay is subject to the following conditions: 

(1) Petitioner must file an appropriate state court pleading within 45 days from the

entry of this order; and 

(2) Petitioner must notify this court within thirty days after the state courts have

completed their review of his claim or after they have refused review of his claims. 

If either condition of the stay is not satisfied, this court may vacate the stay and act

on this petition. See Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005) (district court must

effectuate timeliness concerns of AEDPA by placing “reasonable limits on a petitioner’s trip

Case 1:14-cv-04797-NJV Document 16 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

to state court and back.”).

The clerk shall administratively close this case. The closure has no legal effect; it is

purely a statistical matter. The case will be reopened and the stay vacated upon

notification by petitioner in accordance with section (2) above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:14-cv-04797-NJV Document 16 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

CARLOS L. ROBINSON, No. 1:14-CV-4797 NJV 

Petitioner,

v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WARDEN,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on March 10, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy

of the attached, by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed

below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail.

Carlos L. Robinson 

P-15418 

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, CORCORAN (3476) 

P.O. BOX 3476 

CORCORAN, CA 93212-3476 

 ____________________________________ Linn Van Meter

 Administrative Law Clerk to

 the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

Case 1:14-cv-04797-NJV Document 16 Filed 03/10/15 Page 4 of 4