Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02822/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02822-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of the State of California
Respondent
Juan Manuel Reyes
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JUAN MANUEL REYES, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-2822 GGH P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis 

affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Petitioner 

will be provided the opportunity to either submit the appropriate affidavit in support of a request 

to proceed in forma pauperis or submit the appropriate filing fee. 

By virtue of reading the petition itself, the undersigned finds, however, that petitioner has 

failed to exhaust his state court remedies in regard to all claims. The claims to be reviewed in 

federal habeas must be presented to the California Supreme Court either by way of petitioning for 

direct review after an appeal has been denied in the California Court of Appeal, or by way of a 

habeas corpus petition presented to the state supreme court. The petition indicates that petitioner 

has not made such a presentation, terminating all efforts with the California Court of Appeal. 

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for a 

Case 2:16-cv-02822-GEB-GGH Document 3 Filed 12/13/16 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

writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived 

explicitly by respondent's counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). Thus, a waiver of exhaustion may not 

be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest 

state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the 

federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 

1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

A petition which includes only unexhausted claims may be dismissed on that basis. 

Nevertheless, on February 17, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the 

Rhines stay and abeyance procedure applies to completely unexhausted petitions as well as mixed 

petitions. Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2016). Therefore the petitioner will be provided 

the opportunity to move for a stay under Mena and Rhines. 

The Ninth Circuit opinion in Mena significantly changes the manner in which wholly 

unexhausted federal habeas petitions are handled. The court held “that a district court has the 

discretion to stay and hold in abeyance fully unexhausted petitions under the circumstances set 

forth in Rhines. Mena, supra, 813 F.3d at 908. A district court may also properly stay a habeas 

petition and hold it in abeyance pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). See King v. 

Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Under Rhines, a district court may stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present an 

unexhausted claim to the state courts. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. Such a stay “eliminates entirely 

any limitations issue with regard to the originally unexhausted claims, as the claims remain 

pending in federal court [.]” King, 564 F.3d at 1140. However, to qualify for a stay under 

Rhines, a petitioner must: (1) show good cause for his failure to exhaust all his claims before 

filing this action; (2) explain and demonstrate how his unexhausted claim is potentially 

meritorious; (3) describe the status of any pending state court proceedings on his unexhausted 

claim; and (4) explain how he has diligently pursued his unexhausted claim. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 

277–78. 

Based on the decision in Rhines, petitioner will be required to file a motion for stay and 

abeyance in which he sets forth good cause for his failure to exhaust prior to filing the petition in 

Case 2:16-cv-02822-GEB-GGH Document 3 Filed 12/13/16 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

this case, that his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and that he has not been dilatory 

in proceeding on his claims. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner shall submit, within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order, an 

affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate 

filing fee; petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the in forma pauperis 

form used by this district. 

3. Within twenty-eight (28) days of this order petitioner shall: file and serve a motion for 

stay and abeyance; failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed as unexhausted; 

4. Respondent shall file a response to petitioner's motion within fourteen (14) days 

thereafter; 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and the form Consent to 

Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge on Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General. 

Dated: December 12, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

+ 

GGH:076/md; reye2822.101a 

Case 2:16-cv-02822-GEB-GGH Document 3 Filed 12/13/16 Page 3 of 3