Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01880/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01880-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Katavich
Respondent
Eric Lavelle Nichols
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC LAVELLE NICHOLS,

 Petitioner,

v.

JOHN KATAVICH, Warden,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01880-LJO-SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S 

MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE

Doc. 1

Petitioner Eric Lavelle Nichols is a state prisoner who seeks to proceed with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 24, 2014, Petitioner moved for 

an order of stay and abeyance pending resolution of his claims in California state courts. Because 

Petitioner failed to file a corresponding petition for habeas corpus, the Court denied the motion 

without prejudice and directed Petitioner to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. He mailed the petition to this Court on December 7, 2014.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 20, 2011, following trial in Kern County (California) Superior Court, a jury 

convicted Petitioner of one count of evading police, contrary to California Vehicle Code § 2800.2. 

The court sentenced Petitioner to a ten-year term of imprisonment.

Case 1:14-cv-01880-SMS Document 9 Filed 12/18/14 Page 1 of 4
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

In the California courts, Petitioner pursued both a direct appeal and a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. The California Supreme Court denied his last petition for review of his direct 

appeal on September 11, 2013. Petitioner mailed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus to this 

court on December 7, 2014, in which he alleged that his state habeas claims were still pending 

before the California courts.

DISCUSSION

A federal district court may not address a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless the 

petitioner has exhausted state remedies with respect to each claim raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 

509, 515 (1982). A petition is fully exhausted when the highest state court has had a full and fair 

opportunity to consider all claims before the petitioner presents them to the federal court. Picard v. 

Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). "[P]etitioners who come to federal courts with 'mixed' petitions 

run the risk of forever losing their opportunity for federal review of the unexhausted claims. Rhines 

v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275 (2005). 

Federal district courts should stay mixed petitions only in limited circumstances. Id. at 277. 

A district court may stay a mixed petition if (1) the petitioner demonstrates good cause for failing to 

have first exhausted all claims in state court; (2) the claims potentially have merit; and (3) petitioner 

has not been dilatory in pursuing the litigation. Id. at 277-78.

 In the alternative, a court may stay a mixed petition if (1) the petitioner amends his petition 

to delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully 

exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner to proceed to exhaust the deleted claims in state court; 

and (3) petitioner later amends his petition and reattaches the newly exhausted claims to the 

original petition. Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2003). The Kelly procedure is 

riskier than the Rhines procedure since it does not protect the petitioner's unexhausted claims from 

expiring during the stay. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009).

Case 1:14-cv-01880-SMS Document 9 Filed 12/18/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Despite the risk of the unexhausted claims becoming time-barred in the course of the Kelly

procedure, a petitioner may elect to use that alternative since it does not require him to demonstrate 

good cause as Rhines does. King, 564 F.3d at 1140. Since the Court concludes that Petitioner has 

demonstrated good cause in this case, it will analyze Petitioner's motion using the Rhines

alternative.

Rhines does not define what constitutes good cause for failure to exhaust, and the Ninth 

Circuit has provided no clear guidance beyond holding that the test is less stringent than an 

"extraordinary circumstances" standard. Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661-62 (9th Cir. 2005). If 

the claims are not "plainly meritless," and if the delays are not intentional or attributable to abusive 

tactics, however, the Rhines court opined that a district court would abuse its discretion in denying 

a stay. 544 U.S. at 278. 

Petitioner claims that he (1) was denied the assistance of counsel following withdrawal of 

his trial attorney; (2) was denied his right to a speedy trial; (3) was denied effective assistance of 

counsel; and (4) was denied a new trial because of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. Although 

Petitioner has consistently asserted these claims, his appellate counsel failed to raise those claims. 

Petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel includes a claim against his appellate attorney.

Nothing in the record suggests that Petitioner has intentionally or maliciously failed to 

pursue his potentially meritorious claims. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for the 

unexhausted claims and will grant stay and abeyance under Rhines. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court hereby ORDERS:

1. The Court GRANTS Petitioner's motion for stay and abeyance to permit exhaustion of the 

four stated claims pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275 (1995). 

///

Case 1:14-cv-01880-SMS Document 9 Filed 12/18/14 Page 3 of 4
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

2. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a status report within thirty (30) days of the date of this 

Order advising the Court of the status of the state court proceedings.

3. Petitioner shall file an additional status report every ninety (90) days thereafter.

4. Within thirty (30) days after the California Supreme Court issues a final order resolving the 

unexhausted claims, Petitioner shall file a motion to lift the stay and an amended habeas petition 

setting forth all exhausted claims. The Court shall then screen the petition pursuant to the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases.

5. If Petitioner fails to comply with this Order, the Court will vacate the stay, nunc pro tunc to 

the date of this Order, and dismiss the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust all claims but 

with leave to file an amended petition. See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Such dismissal may render the petition untimely in light of the one-year statute of limitations under 

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA").

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01880-SMS Document 9 Filed 12/18/14 Page 4 of 4