Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02093/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02093-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro Hernandez
Petitioner
Jeanne Woodford
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEDRO HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEANNE WOODFORD,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-02093 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

AND HOLD IN ABEYANCE PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Pedro Hernandez (“Petitioner”) is currently serving a term of forty-years-to-life in

California State Prison at Sacramento, based on a state-court conviction for second-degree murder,

attempted murder, and a gun-use allegation under section 12022.53(d) under the California State

Penal Code. Petitioner currently has a Writ of Habeas Corpus pending in Monterey Superior Court

in Monterey, California. However, Petitioner has also filed a federal petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has requested that his federal petition for writ of

habeas corpus be held in abeyance pending the exhaustion of his state court remedies.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) requires that “[a]n application for writ of habeas corpus . . . shall

not be granted unless it appears that . . . the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the

courts of the State,” and it imposes a one-year statute of limitations on the filing of federal petitions,

under § 2244. However, a petitioner seeking state post-conviction relief might avoid being

procedurally time barred “by filing a ‘protective’ petition in federal court and asking the federal

court

Case 3:05-cv-02093-MHP Document 3 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

There is no thirty (30) day requirement for pursuing state court remedies because Petitioner has

already commenced habeas proceedings in Monterey Superior Court. 

2

to stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are exhausted.” Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 125 S. Ct. 1807, 1813 (2005); see also Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1531 (2005). 

A district court may stay a habeas petition “which it may validly consider on the merits.” 

Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9th Cir. 1997). Once a stay is granted, a district court

may require the petitioner to file his unexhausted claims in state court within thirty days, and to

return to federal court within thirty days of a final decision by the state courts on those claims. Kelly

v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1071 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Based on Pace, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Stay

the petition. It is hearby ordered that:

1. The stay may remain in effect until thirty (30) days following final action by the state

courts to allow Petitioner an opportunity to present a fully exhausted petition for habeas review to

the Court.1

2. If Petitioner fails to act within the allotted time, the stay may be vacated nunc pro

tunc as of the date of issuance of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July_14_, 2005 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02093-MHP Document 3 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2