Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02119/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02119-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Octavio Pena
Petitioner
James E. Tilton
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

SERGIO OCTAVIO PENA,

Petitioner, No. C 07-2119 PJH

v. STAY ORDER;

ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

JAMES E. TILTON,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

On April 16, 2007, petitioner Sergio Pena (“Pena”), a California prisoner who is

currently incarcerated, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. 

BACKGROUND

In 2003, a San Mateo County jury convicted Pena of second degree murder. The

trial court sentenced Pena to sixteen years to life in prison. Petitioner unsuccessfully

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

thereafter denied review on January 18, 2006. Pena subsequently filed a habeas petition

in the state superior court on April 16, 2007, the same day that he filed the petition with this

court. Petitioner asks the court to stay the instant case pending exhaustion of his state

habeas petition. 

DISCUSSION

A. Habeas Standard

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

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

Case 4:07-cv-02119-PJH Document 3 Filed 04/23/07 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

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, Pena asserts that his Due Process rights were

violated when the trial court admitted gang evidence against him. The claim is cognizable,

but it is at least in part unexhausted. As noted, Pena asks that the case be stayed pending

exhaustion, and notes that he is presently pursuing the unexhausted claims in the state

court system. 

District courts have the authority to stay mixed petitions to allow for exhaustion. See

Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 274-75 (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, Pena correctly notes that once he has exhausted his

claim in state court, the window in which he has to file his federal petition is extremely

narrow – two 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 sufficient to

support a stay in this case. Moreover, Pena’s petition is “potentially meritorious,” in that it

presents a colorable federal claim. 

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 claim(s) 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

Case 4:07-cv-02119-PJH Document 3 Filed 04/23/07 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

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”). 

Additionally, at the same time that he files his notification with this court regarding

exhaustion, petitioner is hereby ORDERED to file and serve a supplemental brief in

support of his petition for federal habeas relief that delineates the specific gang-related

evidence that he contends violated his Due Process rights. In the instant petition filed with

this court, petitioner has discussed a number of categories of gang-related evidence, but

has not addressed specifically which evidence forms the basis for his claim. In the

supplemental brief, petitioner should delineate the specific evidence and explain why the

trial court’s admission of that evidence violated his constitutional rights.

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

purely a statistical matter. The case will be reopened, the stay vacated, and an order to

show cause issued upon notification by petitioner in accordance with the conditions set

forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02119-PJH Document 3 Filed 04/23/07 Page 3 of 3