Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00895/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00895-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Hatton
Respondent
Duane Scott Joachim
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

DUANE SCOTT JOACHIM,

Petitioner,

v.

S. HATTON, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-00895-HSG (PR) 

ORDER ADDRESSING PETITIONER'S 

OCTOBER 27, 2016 LETTER

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. Petitioner seeks to challenge his 2013 convictions for first degree residential burglary and 

first degree residential robbery with an enhancement for a prior prison term, for all of which he 

was sentenced to an aggregate term of 7 years and 8 months in state prison. 

In his petition, Petitioner raised a single claim alleging that he was denied his 

constitutional right to a speedy trial. On April 25, 2016, the Court ordered Respondent to show 

cause why the petition should not be granted, and on October 24, 2016, Respondent filed an 

answer to the petition. On October 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a letter with the Court seeking 

guidance on how to stay the instant petition so that he may return to state court to exhaust 

additional claims. See Dkt. No. 12. The letter is dated October 20, 2016. 

Petitioner is advised that if he seeks to exhaust additional claims in state court, he must file 

a motion to stay the instant action. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). A stay “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;” the claims are not meritless; and there were no intentionally 

dilatory litigation tactics by the petitioner. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. Any stay must be limited 

in time to avoid indefinite delay. Id. Reasonable time limits would be 30 days to get to state 

Case 4:16-cv-00895-HSG Document 13 Filed 11/10/16 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

court, as long as reasonably necessary in state court, and 30 days to get back to federal court after 

the final rejection of the claims by the state court. See id. at 278. If petitioner moves for a stay, he 

must show that he satisfies the Rhines criteria. The Rhines Court cautioned district courts against 

being too liberal in allowing a stay because a stay works against several of the purposes of 

AEDPA in that it “frustrates AEDPA’s objective of encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner 

to delay the resolution of the federal proceeding” 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. at 277.

If petitioner seeks to file a motion to stay, he must do so within twenty-eight (28) days of 

this order. If petitioner does not wish to file a motion to stay, he shall so inform the Court within 

twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order. 

Petitioner’s traverse is currently due on November 28, 2016. If petitioner does not file a 

motion to stay, he should file his traverse pursuant to the prior order to show cause.

Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be granted 

provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/10/2016

Case 4:16-cv-00895-HSG Document 13 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 2