Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04557/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04557-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Diego Gonzalez
Petitioner
William Knipp
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIEGO GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-4557 EMC (pr)

ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THE

CASE

Petitioner has filed a motion to hold his federal habeas petition in abeyance so that he can

return to the California state courts to present one or more unexhausted claims. 

There are two kinds of stay and abeyance proceedings available in a habeas action: the

Rhines stay and the King/Kelly stay. A stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), “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,” the claims are not meritless, and there are no intentionally

dilatory litigation tactics by the petitioner. Id. at 277-78. Petitioner has not satisfied the criteria for

a Rhines stay because he has not explained why he did not exhaust the claims before filing his

federal petition and he has not shown that the unidentified claims he wants to present to the state

courts are not meritless.

The King/Kelly stay provides an alternative method to deal with a petitioner who has some

unexhausted claims he wants to present in his federal habeas action. Under the procedure outlined

in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey,

481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007), “(1) a petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted

claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing the

Case 3:12-cv-04557-EMC Document 9 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 2
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

2

petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) the

petitioner later amends his petition and re-attaches the newly-exhausted claims to the original

petition.” King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1134 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71). A

petitioner seeking to avail himself of the King/Kelly three-step procedure is not required to show

good cause as under Rhines. See id. at 1141. Here, Petitioner satisfies the only currently applicable

requirement for a King/Kelly stay, i.e., that his petition has no unexhausted claims. The claims in

the petition appear to have been exhausted, as both were discussed in the California Court of

Appeal’s opinion affirming Petitioner’s conviction. The King/Kelly stay does not appear to require

this Court to decide whether the claims relate back at the time it considers whether to grant a stay. 

Whether the claims relate back to the petition can be decided when he returns after exhausting state

court remedies and moves to amend his petition to add those newly-exhausted claims. The Court

will grant a King/Kelly stay so that Petitioner may exhaust state court remedies for all the claims he

wishes to present to this Court. 

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion to hold his petition in abeyance is

GRANTED. (Docket # 7.) This action is now STAYED and the Clerk shall

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the action. Nothing further will take place in this action until

Petitioner exhausts state court remedies for any unexhausted claims and then moves to reopen this

action, lift the stay and amend his petition to add any new claims. Petitioner must act diligently to

get his state court petition filed and promptly return to this Court – i.e., within thirty days after his

state court proceedings have concluded. See Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070.

In light of the stay, the briefing schedule set in the Order To Show Cause is vacated and

Respondent’s motion for an extension of the deadline to respond to the petition is dismissed as moot. 

(Docket # 8.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2013

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-04557-EMC Document 9 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 2