Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02043/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02043-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terry Lee Marlin
Petitioner
Kathy Prosper
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY LEE MARLIN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2043 DFL JFM P

vs.

KATHY PROSPER, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se an in forma pauperis with an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the

court on petitioner’s motion to hold these proceedings in abeyance pending exhaustion of state

remedies as to additional claims for relief (hereafter “motion to stay”).

On April 12, 2006, respondents filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion to

stay. Respondents’ non-opposition was conditioned on petitioner serving on the court “ a true

and correct copy of any exhaustion petition and related documents promptly upon filing.”

(Statement of Non-Opposition, filed April 12, 2006, at 1.) Respondents also stated that they

might seek to have the stay dissolved nunc pro tunc if petitioner failed to timely exhaust claims

or if those claims were “ultimately revealed to be plainly meritless.” (Id.)

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02043-JKS-JFM Document 28 Filed 02/23/07 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

 This discretion does not extend to cases where the federal habeas corpus petition contains 1

only unexhausted claims. See Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9 Cir. 2006). That th

exception does not apply to the original petition filed in the instant action as all of the claims

contained therein have been exhausted in the California Supreme Court.

2

On August 3, 2006, petitioner filed a request for disposition of his motion for stay. 

In response to that request, on August 16, 2006, respondents filed document withdrawing their

conditional non-opposition to the motion and opposing the stay. Respondents’ opposition is

grounded in petitioner’s apparent failure to file an exhaustion petition in the state courts. 

It is settled that district courts have discretion in appropriate circumstances to stay

federal habeas corpus actions pending exhaustion of state remedies. See Rhines v. Weber, 544

U.S. 269 (2005). In Rhines, the United States Supreme Court held that 1

stay and abeyance should be available only in limited

circumstances. Because granting a stay effectively excuses a

petitioner’s failure to present his claims first to the state courts,

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. Moreover, even if a

petitioner had 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. at 277. In addition, the court is required to put “reasonable time limits” on the exhaustion

process, and should deny a stay if the petitioner “engages in abuse litigation tactics or intentional

delay.” Id. at 278. 

Petitioner seeks a stay of this action in order to exhaust nonspecific claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel against his appellate counsel, Frank G. Prantil. Petitioner

provides no information about the reason for his failure to exhaust those claims prior to filing

this action, he provides no specific information about the claims he seeks to exhaust, nor has he

tendered a copy of any state court petition setting forth those claims. The court is unable,

therefore, to assess either whether petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust the claims

first in state court, or whether those claims are “potentially meritorious.” Cf. Rhines, at 278

(holding that “it would likely be an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay if . . .

Case 2:05-cv-02043-JKS-JFM Document 28 Filed 02/23/07 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

3

unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious. . . .”) For these reasons, petitioner’s motion to

stay these proceedings pending exhaustion of state remedies as to additional claims for relief 

should be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to stay these proceedings be denied; and

2. Petitioner be granted thirty days from the date of any order by the district court

adopting these findings and recommendations in which to file and serve a traverse to

respondents’ answer to the petition. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” 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). 

DATED: February 21, 2007.

12

marl2043.mts

Case 2:05-cv-02043-JKS-JFM Document 28 Filed 02/23/07 Page 3 of 3