Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05069/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05069-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alexis Joel Amaya
Petitioner
Scott Frauenheim
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISON

ALEXIS JOEL AMAYA,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-5069-NJV (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVELY 

CLOSING CASE

Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 5

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner was 

convicted in Santa Clara County, which is in this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2241(d).

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 

Case 4:16-cv-05069-PJH Document 7 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

LEGAL CLAIMS

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) the trial court erred in 

admitting Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) evidence; and (2) the trial 

court erred in allowing supplemental arguments by counsel during the jury’s deliberation and 

counsel was ineffective for failing to object. Petitioner has also filed a motion for a stay to 

exhaust further claims that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in several respects.

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) the United States Supreme Court found that a 

stay and abeyance of a mixed federal petition should be available only in the limited circumstance 

that good cause is shown for a failure to have first exhausted the claims in state court, that the 

claim or claims at issue potentially have merit and that there has been no indication that petitioner 

has been intentionally dilatory in pursuing the litigation. Rhines, supra, at 277-78. 

Liberally construing the motion, petitioner has shown good cause for his failure to exhaust 

the claims before filing this action, the claims do not appear patently meritless, and there does not 

appear to be any intentionally dilatory litigation tactic by petitioner. Petitioner is informed that 

before he may challenge either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in this 

court, he must present to the California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise in this Court. 

See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition 

must be exhausted). 

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 3, 5) is GRANTED.

2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED and this case is STAYED

to allow petitioner to present his unexhausted claims in state court. If petitioner is not granted 

relief in state court, he may return to this court and ask that the stay be lifted. 

3. The stay is subject to the following conditions: 

(1) Petitioner must diligently pursue his state court habeas proceedings; and 

(2) Petitioner must notify this court within thirty days after the state courts have completed 

Case 4:16-cv-05069-PJH Document 7 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

their review of his claim or after they have refused review of his claims. 

If either condition of the stay is not satisfied, this Court may vacate the stay and act on this 

petition. See Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005) (district court must effectuate timeliness 

concerns of AEDPA by placing “reasonable limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.”).

The Clerk shall administratively close this case. The closure has no legal effect; it is 

purely a statistical matter. The case will be reopened and the stay vacated upon notification by 

petitioner in accordance with section (3) above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2016

________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-05069-PJH Document 7 Filed 11/15/16 Page 3 of 3