Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01686/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01686-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Gastello
Respondent
Mark Anthony Kennedy
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTHONY KENNEDY,

Petitioner,

v.

J. GASTELLO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-01686-YGR (PR)

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; 

STAYING HABEAS PROCEEDINGS; 

DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE 

QUARTERLY STATUS REPORTS; AND 

DIRECTING CLERK TO ADMINISTRATIVELY 

CLOSE THIS CASE UNTIL THE COURT ISSUES 

ORDER LIFTING STAY

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. On April 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler issued an Order to Show 

Cause before this action was reassigned to the undersigned Judge. Dkt. 5.

On May 9, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to stay his federal petition while he exhausts his 

remedies in state court. Dkt. 6. Specifically, Petitioner states that he wishes to exhaust his state 

judicial remedies as to his ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) claims against his trial and 

appellate attorneys. Id. at 1.

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge in federal habeas proceedings either the 

fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies by 

presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and 

every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 

U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). If available state remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, the 

district court must dismiss the petition. Id. at 510; Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 

1988). A dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to returning to federal court after 

exhausting available state remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 

1995). 

Petitioners may seek a stay of the petition pursuant to Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 

416 (2005), under which a prisoner may file a protective petition in federal court and ask the court 

to stay federal habeas proceedings until all state remedies are exhausted. District courts have the 

authority to issue stays, and the habeas statute does not deprive them of that authority. Rhines v. 

Case 4:16-cv-01686-YGR Document 11 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-278 (2005). A stay is appropriate where the district court determines 

that good cause existed for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims in state court, and that 

such claims are potentially meritorious. Id.; see also Pace, 544 U.S. at 416. 

Here, it appears that good cause exists for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his IAC claims on

direct appeal because these claims could be raised by way of state habeas corpus. Moreover, the 

IAC claims state cognizable bases for federal habeas relief. This is Petitioner’s first habeas 

petition, and there is no evidence that he seeks the stay for improper purposes. See Fetterly v. 

Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301-02 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that stay for purpose of permitting 

exhaustion of unexhausted claims should be granted only if claims petitioner seeks to pursue are 

cognizable under section 2254; there is likelihood of prejudice to petitioner if stay is not granted; 

and there is no evidence that motion for stay is brought to delay, vex, or harass, or that request is 

abuse of writ). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request for a stay.

The Court vacates the existing briefing schedule set in the April 29, 2016 Order to Show 

Cause. These proceedings are hereby STAYED pending Petitioner’s exhaustion of his state 

judicial remedies. Petitioner must act diligently in exhausting his state judicial remedies, or the 

stay may be lifted. He must file quarterly reports describing the progress of his state court 

proceedings, commencing twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order and continuing 

every ninety-one (91) days thereafter until his state court proceedings are terminated. He must 

also attach to his status reports copies of the cover page of any document that he files with or 

receives from the state courts relating to the claims.

The Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of 

this action. Nothing further will take place in this action until Petitioner receives a final decision 

from the highest state court and, within twenty-eight (28) days of doing so, moves to reopen the 

action, lift the Court’s stay and amend the stayed petition to add the newly-exhausted IAC claims. 

This Order terminates Docket No. 6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

June 9, 2016

Case 4:16-cv-01686-YGR Document 11 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 2