Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03764/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03764-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darral Adams
Respondent
Tracy Conrad Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY CONRAD SMITH,

Petitioner, No. No. C 09-3764 PJH

v. STAY ORDER;

ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

DARRAL ADAMS,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

On August 17, 2009, petitioner Tracy Smith (“Smith”) filed a pro se petition for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 3, 2010, the court dismissed

Smith’s petition with leave to amend, noting that it contained 106 claims, many of which did

not appear cognizable and most of which were incomprehensible. In March 2010, Smith

retained counsel, after which the court subsequently afforded Smith, now represented by

counsel, several extensions of time to file his amended petition. On June 21, 2010, Smith

filed his amended petition, which raises three claims, including that he: 

(1) was deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a jury

determination regarding whether there was sufficient evidence to find him guilty of

robbery;

(2) was deprived of his right to due process and to present his case when the trial

court refused to instruct on his lesser-included offenses to robbery; and

(3) was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to

Case 4:09-cv-03764-PJH Document 24 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

file a Pitchess and a Romero motion.

Smith asserts that he exhausted the first two claims on direct appeal in state court,

but concedes that the third claim is unexhausted. On June 22, 2010, Smith filed a habeas

petition with the California Court of Appeal in an effort to exhaust the third claim. Pursuant

to the court’s June 24, 2010 order to show cause noting that Smith’s amended petition

contained an unexhausted claim, on July 7, 2010, Smith filed a motion to stay his petition

while he exhausts the unexhausted claim in state court. 

District courts have the authority to stay mixed petitions to allow for exhaustion. See

Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 274-75 (2005). However, such stays can only be granted

upon a showing of good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust the issues before filing the

federal petition, and a showing that the issues which the petitioner proposes to exhaust are

“potentially meritorious.” Id. 

With respect to good cause, the court notes that Smith attempted to exhaust the 

claim in state court but through inappropriate channels and also without the assistance of

counsel, and finds that there is sufficient good cause. Additionally, Smith’s original habeas

petition was timely filed, and there appears to be no delay in his pursuit of state court relief

or of relief before this court. Moreover, Smith’s petition is “potentially meritorious,” in that it

presents a colorable federal claim. Accordingly, the stay will be granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s request for a stay is GRANTED, and the case

is hereby STAYED to allow petitioner to present his unexhausted claim in state court. If

petitioner is not granted relief in state court, he may return to this court and ask that the

stay be lifted. The stay is subject to the following condition:

1. Petitioner must notify this court within thirty days after the state courts have

completed their review of his claims or after they have refused review of his claims. 

If this condition of the stay is not satisfied, this court may vacate the stay and act on this

petition. Additionally, at the same time that he files his notification with this court regarding

Case 4:09-cv-03764-PJH Document 24 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

exhaustion, petitioner is hereby ORDERED to file and serve a supplemental brief in

support of his petition for federal habeas relief on the previously unexhausted claim.

The clerk shall administratively close this case. The closure has no legal effect; it is

purely a statistical matter. The case will be reopened, the stay vacated, and an order to

show cause issued upon notification by petitioner in accordance with the conditions set

forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2010

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-03764-PJH Document 24 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3