Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01712/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01712-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cory Adams
Petitioner
Brenda M. Cash
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CORY ADAMS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

BRENDA M. CASH, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:13-cv-1712 AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with retained counsel, has filed a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner has 

also consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. ECF No. 7. The petition challenges 

petitioner’s 2009 conviction for child sexual abuse on the following grounds: (1) ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel; and (2) due process violation by the exclusion of defense expert 

testimony on the key trial issue. Id. at 21-33. 

Petitioner has filed a motion for a stay and abeyance. ECF No. 6. On the date the instant 

federal petition was filed, August 21, 2013, only ground two was exhausted. Petitioner informs 

the court that a habeas petition was filed in the California Supreme Court on or about August 19, 

2013, presenting the allegations of ground one: that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, 

in violation of the Sixth Amendment, by failing to call a qualified expert regarding the physical 

symptoms of child abuse. Petitioner seeks a stay of the instant petition pending exhaustion of 

Case 2:13-cv-01712-AC Document 8 Filed 09/11/13 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

ground one, pursuant to Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). Under Rhines, the district court 

may stay a habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims pending further 

exhaustion. Id. at 277. It would be an abuse of discretion to deny a stay where the petitioner had 

good cause for the failure to previously exhaust, the unexhausted claims are potentially 

meritorious, and there is no indication that petitioner has been intentionally dilatory in pursuing 

the litigation. Rhines, supra, at 277-78. 

 Petitioner has sufficiently satisfied these criteria. He has proffered facts demonstrating 

that he acted diligently in seeking a new trial on ineffective assistance grounds immediately 

following his conviction. The trial court denied the new trial motion on grounds that petitioner 

had not presented an expert witness qualified in the physical symptoms of child abuse. 

Appointed appellate counsel challenged the denial of the new trial motion, but failed to seek 

expansion of his appointment or otherwise address the failure of proof regarding available expert 

witness testimony. On conclusion of appeal, petitioner retained habeas counsel in a reasonably 

diligent effort to pursue collateral relief in state and federal court. Habeas counsel promptly 

pursued, for the first time, development of the necessary expert opinion. This procedural history 

demonstrates cause for the failure to previously exhaust the claim. The claim is not plainly 

meritless.1

 Nor, as petitioner notes, has there been any finding as yet of procedural default. 

Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1316 (2012). Finally, the state Supreme Court habeas petition 

has already been filed. 

 The court finds a stay warranted pending exhaustion of ground one in state court. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 1. Petitioner’s request for a stay (ECF No. 6), pending exhaustion of ground one of the 

instant petition, is granted; 

 2. Petitioner must inform the court within thirty days of the decision by the state Supreme 

Court regarding the pending petition exhausting ground one, the ineffective assistance of counsel 

 

1

 According to petitioner, as a result of a complaint he filed against his trial attorney with the 

California State Bar, petitioner was determined “to be owed $30,000, in part because of [his 

attorney’s] failure to perform sufficient investigation.” Petition at 19. 

Case 2:13-cv-01712-AC Document 8 Filed 09/11/13 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

claim; and 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this case. 

DATED: September 10, 2013 

AC:009 

adam1712.ord 

Case 2:13-cv-01712-AC Document 8 Filed 09/11/13 Page 3 of 3