Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Robert W. Gettleman Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1376 DATE 5/10/2012

CASE

TITLE

United States of America ex rel. Roberto Mata (R41813) vs. Warden Mike Achison

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Petitioner’s motion to stay these proceedings (Dkt. No. 3) is taken under advisement. Respondent’s response

and accompanying state court materials is due twenty-eight days from the entry of this order. Petitioner’s

reply is due twenty-one days after respondent submits his response. Respondent should not answer the

habeas corpus petition at this time. The Court will rule by mail and set additional dates if necessary. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Pro se petitioner Roberto Mata, a prisoner at the Menard Correctional Center, has brought a habeas

corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2002 murder conviction in the Circuit Court of

Cook County. The Court has received his five dollar filing fee. (Dkt. No. 13). The present petition raises

two ineffective assistance of counsel claims, (Dkt. No. 1 at 10-32); see generally Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984), and a sufficiency of the evidence claim. (Dkt. No. 1 at 33-47); see generally Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). 

Petitioner also has a pending motion to stay these proceedings pending the resolution of his

successive state postconviction proceeding. (Dkt. No. 3). He explains that he failed to exhaust his

sufficiency of the evidence claim through his state direct appeal, or first postconviction proceeding, and so he

filed a presently pending successive postconviction proceeding in February 2012. (Dkt. No. 1 at 4; Dkt. No.

4). 

A petitioner may not proceed with an mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted

claims. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 273 (2005) (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1982)); see

also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) (instructing that a district court may not grant habeas corpus relief on

unexhausted claims). Prior to the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(AEDPA), there was no statute of limitations for habeas corpus petitions. Pre-AEDPA, a district court would

dismiss a mixed petition without prejudice and instruct the prisoner to return to state court, exhaust his

petition, and then return to federal court with the fully exhausted petition. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 274 (citing

Rose, 455 U.S. at 522). Alternatively, a prisoner could abandon his unexhausted claims and proceed solely

with exhausted claims. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278 (citing Rose, 455 U.S. at 520). 

The passage of the one-year statute of limitations in the AEDPA complicated the issue. The

12C1376 United States of America ex rel. Roberto Mata (R41813) vs. Warden Mike Achison Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

“interplay between the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations and [Rose v.] Lundy’s dismissal

requirement” for mixed petitions results in the possibility that “petitioners who come to federal court with

‘mixed’ petitions run the risk of forever losing their opportunity for any federal review of their unexhausted

claims.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 275. The solution to this potential problem is a federal court may stay a mix

petition and hold the case in abeyance until the prisoner has exhausted his state court remedies. Id. A

petitioner, however, is not automatically entitled to a stay, but must show “good cause” for a failure to raise

claims in the state court in the first instance, the unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless,” and he has

not engaged in intentional dilatory litigation tactics. Id. at 277-78; see also Tucker v. Kingston, 538 F.3d

732, 735 (7th Cir. 2008); Arrieta v. Battaglia, 461 F.3d 861, 866 (7th Cir. 2006); Dolis v. Chambers, 454

F.3d 721, 724-25 (7th Cir. 2006). Any stay must also have reasonable time limits to insure a prisoner’s

timely return to federal court upon completing the exhaustion of his state court remedies. Rhines, 544 U.S. at

278 (citing Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F.3d 374, 380 (2d Cir. 2002)). 

As a stay undermines the State’s interest in the finality of petitioner’s conviction as protected by the

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations, Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276, the Court shall give respondent an

opportunity to respond to petitioner’s present motion for a stay. Respondent is also instructed to provide all

appropriate state court documents including a current copy of the docket sheet from the pending proceedings

in the Circuit Court of Cook County, state court opinions and briefs, and any other relevant materials so that

the record is complete on the stay question. 

12C1376 United States of America ex rel. Roberto Mata (R41813) vs. Warden Mike Achison Page 2 of 2