Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02671/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02671-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro A. Ramirez
Petitioner
Burno Stolc
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEDRO A. RAMIREZ,

Petitioner, No. 2:12-cv-02671 KJN P

vs.

 BURNO STOLC, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a California state prisoner incarcerated in Arizona, who proceeds

without counsel. Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, and paid the filing fee.

Together with his petition and filing fee, petitioner has filed a motion for leave to

stay the instant action pending petitioner’s exhaustion in the state courts of two claims. 

Petitioner concedes that he has filed a “mixed” petition, containing both exhausted and

unexhausted claims. Petitioner avers that his Claim Three -- that the victim restitution award

violated petitioner’s plea agreement -- was exhausted in the state courts. Although petitioner

does not provide the date of the California Supreme Court’s decision, this court’s review of state

court records indicates that the California Supreme Court denied review on August 8, 2012, 

pursuant to petitioner’s direct appeal of his challenged plea bargain. Petitioner avers that his

1

Case 2:12-cv-02671-KJM-BMK Document 4 Filed 10/31/12 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

Claims One and Two are now pending in a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the Yolo

County Superior Court, and could not previously have been raised by his counsel in the direct

appeal, because these claims challenge the underlying validity of petitioner’s plea agreement, and

the effectiveness of petitioner’s trial counsel. 

Under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), a district court has discretion to

grant a stay and abeyance of a mixed petition if: (1) “the petitioner had good cause for his failure

to exhaust;” (2) “his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious;” and (3) “there is no

indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Rhines, 544

U.S. at 278. A “stay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances.” Id. at

277. Even if a petitioner shows good cause, the district court should not grant a stay if the

unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Id. Additionally, federal proceedings may not be

stayed indefinitely, and reasonable time limits must be imposed on a petitioner’s return to state

court to exhaust additional claims. Id. at 277-78. 

The court finds that petitioner has satisfied the Rhines criteria. Petitioner has

demonstrated good cause for his failure to timely exhaust the unexhausted claims, which appear

to be potentially meritorious. Moreover, it appears that petitioner is diligently pursuing

exhaustion of these claims, filing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Yolo County

Superior Court on September 26, 2012 (see Dkt. No. 1 at 20), within a reasonable period of time

following the California Supreme Court’s August 8, 2012 denial of petitioner’s direct appeal.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s October 29, 2012 motion to “stay and abey” this action (Dkt. No.

2), is granted. 

2. This action is stayed pending exhaustion of state court remedies as to

petitioner’s Claims One and Two, as currently set forth in his federal petition for writ of habeas

corpus, and now pending in the Yolo County Superior Court (Case No. HC-CR-12-39).

////

2

Case 2:12-cv-02671-KJM-BMK Document 4 Filed 10/31/12 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

3. Petitioner is directed to file in this court, within thirty days after the California

Supreme Court issues a final order resolving petitioner’s Claims One and Two, a motion

requesting that the stay be lifted, and leave be granted to file an amended petition for writ of

habeas corpus; petitioner shall include a proposed Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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

further order of this court.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 31, 2012

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

rami2671.stay.abey.wpd

3

Case 2:12-cv-02671-KJM-BMK Document 4 Filed 10/31/12 Page 3 of 3