Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01480/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01480-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph M. Diaz
Respondent
Richard Anthony Peterson
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

RICHARD ANTHONY PETERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

RALPH M. DIAZ,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-01480 WBS GGH P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1.

In his “objections” to the January 13, 2020 Findings and Recommendations, petitioner 

appears to seek a stay pending exhaustion of his fully unexhausted petition. ECF No. 18. 

Petitioner has further provided a copy of the habeas petition that has been filed with the 

California Supreme Court. ECF No. 19. In response to petitioner’s request to a motion for stay, 

respondent argues a motion to stay is inappropriate for fully unexhausted petitions. ECF No. 20. 

However, respondent is incorrect. “[A] district court has the discretion to stay and hold in 

abeyance fully unexhausted petitioners under the circumstances set forth in Rhines.” Mena v. 

Long, 813 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)). 

A district court may 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). 

Case 2:19-cv-01480-WBS-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/02/20 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

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. Assuming the petition itself has 

been timely filed, 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. A petitioner qualifies for a stay under Rhines so long as (1) good cause is shown for a 

failure to have first exhausted the claims in state court; (2) the claim or claims at issue potentially 

have merit; and (3) there has been no indication that petitioner has been intentionally dilatory in 

pursuing the litigation. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. Although good cause does not require 

“extraordinary circumstances,” courts must “interpret whether a petitioner has ‘good cause’ for a 

failure to exhaust in light of the Supreme Court’s instruction in Rhines that the district court 

should only stay mixed petitions in ‘limited circumstances.’” Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 

1024 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661-62 (9th Cir. 2005)). The Ninth 

Circuit has further rejected a “broad interpretation of ‘good cause.’” Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1024. 

Instead, “good cause turns on whether the petitioner can set forth a reasonable excuse, supported 

by sufficient evidence, to justify that failure.” Blake v. Baker, 745 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pursuant to Rhines, petitioner will be granted an opportunity to file a motion for stay and 

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

current federal habeas petition; that is unexhausted claims are meritorious; and that he has not 

been dilatory in proceeding on his claims. Respondent will be further provided an opportunity to 

file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to petitioner’s motion for stay. The court will set 

forth an expedited briefing schedule on this matter.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The “objections” will not be forwarded to the district judge as they are functionally a 

request to file a motion for stay;

2. Petitioner shall have twenty-one days to file a motion for stay and abeyance pursuant 

to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). Petitioner is warned that failure to file a motion for stay 

and abeyance within the court’s deadline will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed as unexhausted;

Case 2:19-cv-01480-WBS-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/02/20 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

3. Respondent is hereby directed to file an opposition or a notice of non-opposition to 

petitioner’s stay and abeyance motion within fourteen days from service of the motion for stay; 

4. Petitioner’s reply, if any, is due seven days thereafter; and

5. If petitioner exhausts any claims in the California Supreme Court prior to this court’s 

resolution of the pending motion, petitioner shall immediately file a notice of exhaustion in this 

court. 

6. No extensions of time will be granted except in the most compelling of circumstances.

Dated: March 2, 2020

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:19-cv-01480-WBS-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 3