Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01481/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01481-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heidi M. Lackner
Respondent
Matthew Linderman
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

MATTHEW LINDERMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

HEIDI M. LACKNER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01481-LJO-GSA

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND GRANTING 

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY AND 

ABEY

(ECF Nos. 8 and 9)

Petitioner is a state prisoner represented by counsel in a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition for 

writ of habeas corpus, which raises nine grounds for relief. On October 1, 2014, the Court issued

an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for containing unexhausted 

claims. (ECF No. 8). On October 30, 2014, Petitioner filed a response requesting a stay 

pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005), and if not, a stay pursuant to Kelly v. 

Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1069-71 (9th Cir. 2002). 

I.

DISCUSSION

A district court has discretion to stay a mixed petition and allow the petitioner to return to 

state court to exhaust her state remedies. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. at 277; Calderon v. United 

Case 1:14-cv-01481-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 11/05/14 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

2

States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir.1998); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 

F.3d 1268, 1274 (9th Cir.1997). However, the Supreme Court has held that this discretion is 

circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Rhines, 

544 U.S. at 277. In light of AEDPA’s objectives, “stay and abeyance [is] available only in 

limited circumstances” and “is only appropriate when the district court determines there was 

good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.” Id. at 277. 

In this case, the Court finds good cause to grant the motion for stay. Petitioner states it 

took time for his family to raise funds and hire habeas counsel to file both his state and federal 

petitions for habeas corpus. Further, Petitioner states that the unexhausted claims involve 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel, which he was unable to raise in prior 

proceedings. In addition, it appears that Petitioner was acting with due diligence. Petitioner 

states the California Court of Appeal issued a decision on July 2, 2013, and he subsequently filed 

a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court. He then filed the instant federal petition 

on September 22, 2014. He filed his state petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California 

Supreme Court to exhaust his state remedies on September 18, 2014. Based on the alleged date 

of the California Supreme Court’s denial, Petitioner appears to be within the statute of 

limitations. Accordingly, it appears that Petitioner has not intentionally or unduly delayed. 

Good cause having been shown, the Court will grant a stay pursuant to the proceedings so 

Petitioner can complete exhaustion of the additional claims. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277.

However, the Court will not indefinitely hold the petition in abeyance. Id. Petitioner 

must diligently pursue his state court remedies. He is directed to file a status report within thirty 

(30) days of the date of service of this Order, and he must file a status report every ninety (90) 

days thereafter advising the Court of the status of the state court proceedings. Following final 

action by the state courts, Petitioner will be allowed thirty (30) days to file a motion to lift the 

stay. Failure to comply with these instructions and time allowances will result in this Court 

vacating the stay nunc pro tunc to the date of this order, and dismissal of the unexhausted claims. 

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278.

///

Case 1:14-cv-01481-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 11/05/14 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

3

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Order to Show Cause issued on October 1, 2014, is DISCHARGED; 

2) Petitioner’s motion for a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005), 

is GRANTED; and

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

service of this ORDER, and then every ninety (90) days thereafter. Following final 

action by the California Supreme Court, Petitioner is DIRECTED to notify the Court 

by filing a motion to lift the stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01481-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 11/05/14 Page 3 of 3