Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02143/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02143-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph Diaz
Respondent
James Garner
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

JAMES GARNER,

Petitioner, 

v. 

RALPH DIAZ, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:20-cv-02143 DB P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2017 conviction in 

Sacramento County Superior Court. Before the court is petitioner’s motion for stay and 

abeyance. (ECF No. 8.) For the reasons stated below, the court will deny petitioner motion 

without prejudice. 

MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE

Petitioner requests that the court stay the present action for purposes of exhaustion. (Id. at 

1.) This request is made pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (Id.) 

Under Rhines, a district court may stay a mixed habeas petition if the following conditions 

are met: (1) “the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust,” (2) “his unexhausted claims 

are potentially meritorious,” and (3) “there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in 

intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” 544 U.S. at 278. The Supreme Court has made clear that 

Case 2:20-cv-02143-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 11/02/21 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

this option “should be available only in limited circumstances.” Id. at 277. For purposes of a stay 

under Rhines, whether the petitioner has good cause for his failure to exhaust “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) (citing Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 

U.S. 408, 416 (2005)). A stay granted pursuant to Rhines may not be indefinite; reasonable time 

limits must be imposed on a petitioner's return to state court. 544 U.S. at 277-78. 

Petitioner’s request states simply that he requests a stay while he seeks to exhaust his 

claims in state court. (ECF No. 8 at 1.) Petitioner has not include in his motion any explanation 

for the failure to exhaust his claims in state court prior to bringing the present action. (See Id.) 

As such, petitioner’s motion does not establish good cause for his failure to exhaust. Blake, 745 

F.3d at 982. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for stay will be denied without prejudice to its

renewal. In any subsequent motion for stay and abeyance of this action under Rhines, petitioner

must ensure that the requirements for such a stay, as briefly summarized above, are met and

established in the petitioner’s motion.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for stay 

(ECF No. 8) is denied without prejudice. 

DB:14

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Habeas/S/garn2143.denystay

DATED: November 1, 2021

Case 2:20-cv-02143-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 11/02/21 Page 2 of 2