Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00621/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00621-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chris Strickland
Respondent
Dexter Y. Wilkins
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEXTER Y. WILKINS, 1:07-CV-0621 LJO WMW HC

Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY

vs. (Doc. 2)

MONTHLY STATUS REPORTS REQUIRED

CHRIS STRICKLAND, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 24, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for a stay of these proceedings

pending the exhaustion of additional claims in state court.

A district court has discretion to stay a petition which it may validly consider on the merits.

Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1534, 2005 WL 711587 (2005); Calderon v. United

States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9 Cir. 1998); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, th

1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). However, the Supreme Court has held that this

discretion is circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).

Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1534. In light of AEDPA’s objectives, “stay and abeyance [is] available only in

limited circumstances” and “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.” Id. at 1535. Even if Petitioner were

Case 1:07-cv-00621-LJO-WMW Document 4 Filed 06/06/07 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

to demonstrate 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.

Unfortunately, the Rhines does not discuss what circumstances would constitute “good cause”

for a petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims in state court before initiating his federal habeas corpus

proceeding. In the present case, Petitioner provides a declaration stating that the claims are newly

discovered. This court is not prepared to find that this does not constitute good cause. See Fetterly v.

Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301 (9 Cir. 1993) (abused of discretion found when court denied stay to th

exhaust newly discovered claims). Further, the fact that Petitioner has already filed his petition with

the California Supreme Court presenting his newly discovered claims weighs towards supporting the

AEDPA’s objective of encouraging finality and supports AEDPA’s objective of streamlining federal

habeas proceedings. Id. at 1534. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for stay of the proceedings is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner

is HEREBY ORDERED to file a status report regarding his habeas corpus petition now pending in the

California Supreme Court on August 1, 2007, and every thirty days thereafter. In addition, Petitioner

shall immediately inform this court when the California Supreme Court rules on his case.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00621-LJO-WMW Document 4 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 2