Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02980/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02980-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Marshall
Respondent
Lonnie David Stringer
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 

LONNIE DAVID STRINGER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOHN MARSHALL, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:09-cv-2980-GEB-EFB P 

ORDER 

Petitioner is a state prisoner with counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. On March 31, 2011, this court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the action as 

barred by the statute of limitations contained in the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty 

Act (“AEDPA”). ECF No. 30. Later that year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

concluded that AEDPA’s limitations provisions are subject to an equitable exception for claims of 

actual innocence. Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The United States 

Supreme Court agreed in 2013. McQuiggin v. Perkins, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928, 1933 

(2013). 

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this court’s determinations that: (1) petitioner is not 

entitled to statutory tolling; (2) the federal statute of limitations began to run when petitioner’s 

conviction became final; and (3) petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. ECF No. 38. 

///// 

Case 2:09-cv-02980-KJM-EFB Document 57 Filed 04/15/15 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 

27 

28 2

However, because this court did not consider whether petitioner qualified for the equitable 

exception based on actual innocence, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for consideration of 

that single issue, citing McQuiggin. Id.

The court ordered supplemental briefing and the state court record to address the actual 

innocence issue. ECF No. 40. The court has received the record and the briefs. Petitioner now 

asks the court to stay ruling on the issue until the resolution of his California Penal Code § 1405 

motion for DNA testing, filed in Solano County Superior Court late last year. ECF No. 53. 

Petitioner guesses that the hearing on the motion would be held in early 2015 and the motion 

would be resolved by May 2015 (including any DNA testing that the state court may order). 

Petitioner asks the court to stay the case until mid-May and then hold a status conference to 

determine whether the stay should be lifted. 

Respondent opposes the request, arguing that “[a]ny future DNA test results would be 

barred from consideration in this Court because petitioner has not exhausted the claim in the state 

courts.” ECF No. 55 at 2. Respondent misperceives the exhaustion requirement. A federal 

habeas petitioner must exhaust his claims for relief by fairly presenting them to the state’s highest 

court. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 354, 365 (1995). The issue before the court right now is not 

any claim for habeas relief, but rather the federal procedural issue of whether petitioner has 

enough evidence of his innocence such that his claims for habeas relief may be heard despite his 

failure to file his petition within the federal limitations period. This is a determination that can 

only be made by the federal court, as a preliminary procedural matter prior to any consideration 

of the merits of the actual claims contained in the petition. 

The court has inherent authority to manage its docket and, in the efficient pursuit of that 

objective, may stay a case pending resolution of independent proceedings that are relevant to the 

case before the court. Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2000). However, the court 

has a competing obligation to resolve habeas petitions promptly. Id. at 1120. A district court 

may not, in the interests of judicial economy, issue an indefinite and potentially lengthy stay in a 

habeas case. Id. 

///// 

Case 2:09-cv-02980-KJM-EFB Document 57 Filed 04/15/15 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 

27 

28 3

 Should the state court grant petitioner’s request for DNA analysis, such evidence would 

certainly be relevant to the court’s resolution of whether petitioner has sufficient evidence of his 

innocence such that the court may hear his case on the merits despite the passage of the 

limitations period. Nevertheless, the court must not stay the case any longer than is necessary. 

Accordingly, the court orders petitioner’s counsel to submit a status report within seven days of 

the date of this order informing the court of the current progress of the § 1405 motion in the state 

superior court. The court will defer ruling on the need for a stay until receipt of the report. 

 So ordered.

Dated: April 14, 2015. 

 

Case 2:09-cv-02980-KJM-EFB Document 57 Filed 04/15/15 Page 3 of 3