Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01474/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01474-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gena Jones
Respondent
Eddie Perez
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was transferred to this Court from the 

Sacramento Division on December 4, 2024, because Petitioner is challenging a conviction from Kings 

County. The operative pleading is Petitioner’s First Amended Petition filed on November 8, 2023. 

(Doc. 13.) Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings and motion to modify 

Counsel’s appointment orders. (Doc. 16.)

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Stay and Abeyance

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

court to exhaust his state remedies. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). This discretion is 

circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Id. at 277. In 

EDDIE PEREZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

GENA JONES,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:24-cv-01474-JLT-SKO (HC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY AND 

ABEYANCE [Doc. 16]

ORDER MODIFYING APPOINTMENT ORDERS

TO APPOINT COUNSEL UNDER THE CJA 

PROGRAM [Docs. 9, 10, 12]

[SIXTY DAY DEADLINE]

Case 1:24-cv-01474-JLT-SKO Document 23 Filed 12/10/24 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

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. 

The Court finds good cause to grant the motion for stay because the unexhausted claims appear 

to be potentially meritorious and there is no indication Petitioner has engaged in dilatory tactics. 

Petitioner seeks to return to state court to exhaust five newly discovered claims (Grounds Two through 

Six). The pleadings and exhibits indicate Petitioner suffers from a learning disability as well as mental 

health disorders. For this reason, the Court appointed Meredith Fahn of the Office of the Federal 

Defender as counsel for Petitioner for the limited purpose of reviewing the case and preparing the First 

Amended Petition. (Docs. 9, 10.) Upon review of the case, Counsel discovered the five additional

claims and filed the amended petition in advance of the statute of limitations deadline. Counsel states 

she also attempted to file a state habeas petition concurrently with the First Amended Petition. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner has shown good cause for a stay of the proceedings and 

will grant his motion for stay.

II. Motion to Modify Appointment Order

Counsel was initially appointed on a limited basis, set to terminate with the filing of an 

amended petition. The appointment was then modified to expire with the filing of a motion to amend 

and a proposed second amended petition. (Doc. 12.) Upon full investigation of the case, Counsel 

determined that preparation of a second amended petition was not appropriate at this time, and the 

case should instead be held in abeyance pending exhaustion of Petitioner’s five unexhausted claims. 

As discussed above, the Court will grant the motion for stay to enable Petitioner to return to state court 

to exhaust his claims.

Counsel requests that the appointment orders be modified to full representation of Petitioner. 

Counsel states the case is particularly complex given the nature of the claims, Petitioner’s related 

mental health issues, and the voluminous exhibits (57,980+ pages). Counsel also states she has 

experienced difficulties in filing the state petition in the Kings County Superior Court. When Counsel 

provided the Superior Court with thumb drives containing the 57,980+ pages of exhibits in .pdf form, 

the Superior Court rejected the filing and directed Counsel to file the documents in paper form. Given 

Case 1:24-cv-01474-JLT-SKO Document 23 Filed 12/10/24 Page 2 of 3
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

Petitioner’s mental health issues and learning disabilities, the complexity of the case, and Petitioner’ 

indigence, it would likely be near impossible for him to properly pursue his state habeas remedies 

without assistance. Accordingly, the Court will appoint Counsel under the CJA program for full 

federal habeas corpus representation of Petitioner.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Petitioner’s motion for stay is GRANTED; 

2) The Court MODIFIES its appointment of counsel by expanding its limited appointment 

orders (Docs. 9, 10, 12) to provide Petitioner with full federal habeas corpus representation under the 

CJA program; and

3) Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a status report within 60 days of the date of service of this 

Order, and every 60 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 within 30 days of the 

date of the California Supreme Court’s decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01474-JLT-SKO Document 23 Filed 12/10/24 Page 3 of 3