Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00337/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00337-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kyle J. Lawson
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE J. LAWSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN JAMES A. YATES, )

)

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________ )

CV F 06-0337 AWI WMW HC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR STAY AND VACATING

ORDER REQUIRING

RESPONSE

[Doc. 4, 6]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Petitioner has filed a

motion for a stay of these proceedings pending the exhaustion of additional claims in state

court

Case 1:06-cv-00337-WMW Document 11 Filed 11/08/06 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

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); th

Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). 

However, the Supreme Court recently 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 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) th

(abused of discretion found when court denied stay to 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 undermines AEDPA’s objective of streamlining federal

habeas proceedings. Id. at 1534. Finally, Respondent has not opposed Petitioner’s request for

a stay.

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 within thirty (30) days of the date of service of

Case 1:06-cv-00337-WMW Document 11 Filed 11/08/06 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

this order and every thirty (30) days thereafter. In light of the stay, the court’s order of

August 14, 2006, requiring Respondent to file a responsive pleading is HEREBY

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00337-WMW Document 11 Filed 11/08/06 Page 3 of 3