Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04236/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04236-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Delongis
Petitioner
Derrick L. Ollison
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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DELONGIS,

Petitioner, No. C 06-4236 PJH

v. STAY ORDER;

ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

DERRICK L. OLLISON, Warden

Ironwood State Prison,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

Petitioner, a California prisoner who is currently incarcerated, has filed a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. Venue is

proper in this court, as the conviction was obtained in Sonoma County, which is in this

district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

BACKGROUND

A Sonoma County jury convicted petitioner of second degree murder and spousal

battery. He was sentenced to a fifteen year to life term for the second degree murder

count, and an eight year term for the remaining count. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed

his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of California denied

review. Petitioner has also filed a state habeas petition to raise additional issues, which

petition is pending. Petitioner asks the court to stay the instant case pending exhaustion of

his state habeas petition. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in

Case 4:06-cv-04236-PJH Document 4 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 3
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

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a).

It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or

person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. at § 2243.

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts: (1) that his Fifth, Sixth,

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court failed to

instruct the jury that it could consider the issue of petitioner’s intoxication in determining

evidence of malice; (2) that his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated

when the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it could consider evidence of petitioner’s

mental state in relation to the second-degree murder charge; and (3) that his Fifth, Sixth,

and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when appellate counsel was ineffective in

failing to raise issue (2) on appeal.

These claims are cognizable, but petitioner concedes that all except for claim one

are not exhausted. He asks that the case be stayed pending exhaustion, and notes that he

is presently pursuing the unexhausted claims in the state court system. 

The United States Supreme Court has recently held that district courts have

authority to stay mixed petitions to allow for exhaustion. See Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct.

1528, 1535 (2005). However, such stays can only be granted upon a showing of good

cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust the issues before filing the federal petition, and a

showing that the issues which the petitioner proposes to exhaust are “potentially

meritorious.” Id. 

With respect to good cause, petitioner alleges that once the remaining claims are

exhausted, the window in which he has to file his federal petition is extremely narrow –

approximately twelve days – and that absent a stay, any small delay in notification to

petitioner may result in the forfeiture of his rights under AEDPA. These allegations are

Case 4:06-cv-04236-PJH Document 4 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

sufficient. Moreover, petitioner’s claims are “potentially meritorious,” in that they present

colorable federal claims. 

Accordingly, the stay will be granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s request for a stay is GRANTED, and the case

is hereby STAYED to allow petitioner to present his unexhausted claims in state court. If

petitioner is not granted relief in state court, he may return to this court and ask that the

stay be lifted. The stay is subject to the following condition:

1. Petitioner must notify this court within thirty days after the state courts have

completed their review of his claims or after they have refused review of his

claims. 

If this condition of the stay is not satisfied, this court may vacate the stay and act on

this petition. See Rhines, 125 S. Ct. at 1535 (district court must effectuate timeliness

concerns of AEDPA by placing “reasonable limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and

back”). 

The clerk shall administratively close this case. The closure has no legal effect; it is

purely a statistical matter. The case will be reopened and the stay vacated upon

notification by petitioner in accordance with the condition noted above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04236-PJH Document 4 Filed 08/14/06 Page 3 of 3