Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00849/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00849-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Frauenheim
Respondent
Roberto Antonio Mendoza
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO ANTONIO MENDOZA,

Petitioner,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-00849-VC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

STAY; REINSTATING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. No. 13

Petitioner Roberto Antonio Mendoza, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus and subsequently filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental petition with ten 

additional claims. On July 6, 2015, the Court issued an order denying the motion without 

prejudice and requesting clarification from Mendoza about whether his supplemental claims were 

exhausted and, if not, to indicate how he wished to proceed with his petition. If the claims were 

not exhausted, the Court allowed Mendoza to choose one of three options: (1) withdraw the 

request to amend the petition and proceed only with the original unexhausted claims; (2) dismiss 

the petition and return to state court to exhaust all claims before filing a new federal petition with 

all claims; or (3) file a motion for a stay of the petition pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 

(2005) or Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002), while he exhausts unexhausted claims in 

state court. The Court explained the requirements for a stay under Rhines and Kelly and informed 

Mendoza that, if he moved for a stay, he must show that he satisfies the requirements.

On July 31, 2015, Mendoza filed a motion indicating that his new claims are unexhausted

and that he seeks to stay the petition under Rhines. He also included, as an attachment, his motion 

Case 3:15-cv-00849-VC Document 14 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

for leave to file a supplemental petition to include his unexhausted claims. As explained in the 

previous order, under Rhines, a motion to stay “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,” the claims are not meritless, and there are no intentionally dilatory litigation tactics by the 

petitioner. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. “While a bald assertion cannot amount to a showing of 

good cause, a reasonable excuse, supported by evidence to justify a petitioner's failure to exhaust, 

will.” Blake v. Baker, 745 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014).

Citing Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416-17 (2005), Mendoza argues that a 

petitioner’s confusion about whether his federal petition would be timely is good cause for failing 

to exhaust claims first in state court. Pace addressed whether a state habeas petition was properly 

filed for purposes of statutory tolling when it was rejected by the state court as untimely; it said 

nothing about the standard for showing good cause for a stay under Rhines. Id. at 410. The other 

cases Mendoza cites—Olivera v. Giurbino, 371 F.3d 569, (9th Cir. 2004); Ford v. Hubbard, 330 

F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2003); and Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)—were decided 

before Rhines and refer to a stay under Kelly v. Small, which does not require a showing of good 

cause. 

In any event, Mendoza fails to indicate that he personally was confused about the timing of 

filing his federal petition and fails to provide any other reasonable excuse, supported by evidence, 

to justify his failure to exhaust. Furthermore, Mendoza merely lists, without description, his 

unexhausted claims; therefore, it is not possible to assess the merits of these claims, which is 

required before a stay may be granted under Rhines.

Because Mendoza does not qualify for a stay under Rhines, and he does not move for a 

stay under Kelly, his motion for a stay and his motion for leave to file a supplemental petition are

denied. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Mendoza’s motions for a stay and for leave to file a supplemental petition are denied.

2. The briefing schedule on Mendoza’s petition, which was vacated during the pendency of 

Case 3:15-cv-00849-VC Document 14 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

his motions, is reinstated. The respondent’s answer, which was due on July 10, 2015, is now due 

two weeks from the date of this order. Mendoza’s traverse is due thirty days thereafter. 

3. This order terminates docket number 13.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2015

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00849-VC Document 14 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO ANTONIO MENDOZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00849-VC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 13, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Roberto Antonio Mendoza ID: AH-2211

Pleasant Valley State Prison A3-202

P.O. Box 8500

Coalinga, CA 93210 

Dated: August 13, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Kristen Melen, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable VINCE CHHABRIA

Case 3:15-cv-00849-VC Document 14 Filed 08/13/15 Page 4 of 4