Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00565/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00565-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John N. Katavich
Respondent
Ernest Edward Smith
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

ERNEST EDWARD SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN N. KATAVICH, Warden,

Respondent.

1:15-cv-00565 DAD MJS HC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY 

THE STAY SHOULD NOT BE VACATED

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections 

pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, following 

his May 30, 2012 conviction of two counts of assault with a firearm and possession of a 

firearm by a felon. (See, Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A.) Several enhancements also were found 

true, including use of a firearm and infliction of great bodily injury. Petitioner was 

sentenced to a determinate term of twelve (12) years in prison.

On April 13, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

Case 1:15-cv-00565-DAD-MJS Document 16 Filed 07/05/16 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

this Court raising five claims for relief. (Pet. at 3-11.)

On May 12, 2015, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss based on Petitioner’s 

failure to exhaust claims presented in the petition. (Mot. To Dismiss, ECF No. 9.) 

Petitioner did not file an opposition. On June 18, 2015, the Court issued findings and a 

recommendation that the motion be granted and the petition be dismissed unless 

Petitioner elected to proceed with claim 1, the only exhausted claim in the instant 

petition.

On June 24, 2015, Petitioner moved the Court to stay the petition while he sought 

to exhaust his state court remedies with regard to his other claims. (Doc. 12.) On 

February 2, 2016, the Court granted the stay, and required Petitioner to file a motion to 

lift the stay within thirty (30) days of the California Supreme Court issuing a final order 

resolving Petitioner's unexhausted claims.

Taking judicial notice of the May 11, 2016 denial of Petitioner’s petition for habeas 

corpus filed with California Supreme Court as indicated on the California Supreme 

Court’s website (See Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012)), 

the Court notes over thirty days have passed since the California Supreme Court ruling. 

The Court has not received a motion to lift the stay, and therefore issues the instant 

order to show cause regarding Petitioner’s failure to prosecute the instant action. 

As discussed by the Supreme Court, the stay and abeyance procedure is 

available only in limited circumstances because the procedure frustrates AEDPA's 

objective of encouraging finality and streamlining federal habeas proceedings. Rhines v. 

Weber, 544 U.S. 277 (2005).

A mixed petition should not be stayed indefinitely... Without time 

limits, petitioners could frustrate AEDPA's goal of finality by dragging out 

indefinitely their federal habeas review. Thus, district courts should place 

reasonable time limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and back. See, 

e.g., Zarvela, 254 F.3d, at 381 ("[District courts] should explicitly condition 

the stay on the prisoner's pursuing state court remedies within a brief 

interval, normally 30 days, after the stay is entered and returning to federal 

court within a similarly brief interval, normally 30 days after state court 

exhaustion is completed"). And if a petitioner engages in abusive litigation 

tactics or intentional delay, the district court should not grant him a stay at 

all. See id., at 380-381. 

Case 1:15-cv-00565-DAD-MJS Document 16 Filed 07/05/16 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

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78.

Here, Petitioner was ordered to file a motion to lift the stay within thirty days of the 

California Supreme Court ruling, but failed to do so. Petitioner is therefore ordered to 

show cause and explain why the stay should not be vacated. 

ORDER

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner file a response to the order to show 

cause within thirty (30) days of service of this order explaining why the stay should not 

be vacated. 

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of 

the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00565-DAD-MJS Document 16 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 3