Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00994/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00994-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Michael Alvarado
Petitioner
James A. Yates
Respondent

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MICHAEL ALVARADO,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-00994 OWW DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

STAY AND ABEYANCE; OBJECTIONS DUE

WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS FROM DATE OF

SERVICE

[Doc. 6]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 12, 2007. On July

23, 2007, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the instant

petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust the state court remedies. Specifically, it was noted

that Petitioner had conceded that all of the claims raised in the instant petition were currently

pending before the California Supreme Court by way of a state petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

(Findings & Recommendation, at 3.) 

On July 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for a stay and abeyance. (Court Doc. 6.) 

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-278 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a district

court has discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present his unexhausted

claims to the state court in the first instance and then to return to federal court for review of his

perfected petition. Nevertheless, stay and abeyance is available only in limited circumstances,

Case 1:07-cv-00994-DLB Document 9 Filed 08/31/07 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 AEDPA refers to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 1

2

because the procedure frustrates AEDPA’s objective of encouraging finality by allowing a 1

petitioner to delay the resolution of federal proceedings and undermines AEDPA’s goal of

streamlining federal habeas proceedings by decreasing a petitioner’s incentive to exhaust all his

claims in state court prior to filing his federal petition. Id. The Supreme Court held that a stay

and abeyance 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. 

Petitioner claims that he meets the requirements set forth in Rhines for staying a petition. 

However, unlike the petition in Rhines, the instant petition is not a mixed petition, i.e. one that

contains exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rather, the petition by Petitioner’s own admission

contains only unexhausted claims. Petitioner does not cite, and the Court is not aware of, any

authority for the proposition that the Rhines’ stay and abeyance procedure applies to a petition

containing only unexhausted claim. When discussing Rhines, the Ninth Circuit has stated that

Rhines applies to stays of mixed petitions and Rhines allows the Court to stay mixed petitions

rather than dismiss them. See e.g. Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1173 n.10 (9 Cir. 2005); th

Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9 Cir. 2005). Therefore, given the absence of authority for th

the proposition that the Court may stay a petition containing only unexhausted claim and Rhines’

and its progency’s use of the term “mixed petition,” the Court finds that it does not have the

power to stay and hold in abeyance a petition that contains only unexhausted claims.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s motion to stay the

instant petition be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

Case 1:07-cv-00994-DLB Document 9 Filed 08/31/07 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

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 31, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00994-DLB Document 9 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 3