Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01006/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01006-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. M. Harrison
Respondent
Don M. Roberts
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON M. ROBERTS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

C. M. HARRISON, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 05-1006 OWW WMW HC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO STAY CASE AND HOLD IT

IN ABEYANCE PENDING

EXHAUSTION OF

ADDITIONAL CLAIM

[Doc. 7]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a habeas corpus petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. Section 2254. Petitioner seeks a stay of his petition in order to exhaust an

additional claim in state court.

A district court has discretion to stay a petition which it may validly consider on the

merits. Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1534, 2005 WL 711587 (2005);

Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1998);

Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). 

However, the Supreme Court recently held that this discretion is circumscribed by the

Case 1:05-cv-01006-LJO -WMW Document 8 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 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 2

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1534.

In light of AEDPA’s objectives, “stay and abeyance [is] available only in limited

circumstances” and “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. at 1535. Even

if Petitioner were to demonstrate good cause for that failure, “the district court would abuse

its discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly

meritless.” Id.

Unfortunately, the Rhines does not discuss what circumstances would constitute

“good cause” for a petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims in state court before initiating his

federal habeas corpus proceeding. In the present case, Petitioner provides a declaration

stating that the claims are newly discovered, in that he was only recently able to obtain

declarations from the percipient witnesses. This court is not prepared to find that this does

not constitute good cause. See Fetterly v. Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301 (9

th Cir. 1993)

(abused of discretion found when court denied stay to exhaust newly discovered claims). 

Further, the fact that Petitioner has already filed his petition with the California Superior

Court presenting his newly discovered claim weighs towards supporting the AEDPA’s

objective of encouraging finality and undermines AEDPA’s objective of streamlining federal

habeas proceedings. Id. at 1534. 

Based on the above, Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the proceedings is hereby

GRANTED. Thirty days from the date of this order and every thirty days thereafter,

Petitioner shall file a status report informing this court of the status of his habeas petition in

California Superior Court and his efforts to exhaust his claim.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01006-LJO -WMW Document 8 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2