Court Opinion

ID: 9485066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 10:34:58.919001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:45.017074
License: Public Domain

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part:
I agree that counsel for Petitioner Tracy Jones failed to perfect her appeal as requested. I also agree that counsel’s failure to perfect the appeal was a sufficiently egregious dereliction to warrant equitable tolling. See Holland v. Florida, — U.S. -, -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); see also Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 801 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, I concur in the affirmance of the district court’s grant of habeas relief to Jones on her claim asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Because of the unique procedural posture of this case, the issues raised in Jones’s cross-claims are pending in the state court and are, therefore, unexhaust-ed. See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir.2009). In that circumstance, I think it more appropriate to remand the case to the district court to exercise its discretion regarding whether to stay the habeas petition pending exhaustion. See id. at 1139 (describing the procedure to be used by district cowis).
In sum, I concur in the affirmance of the district court’s grant of habeas relief to Jones. I would remand the case to the district court for a determination of whether to stay the federal proceedings pending exhaustion of Jones’s cross-claims in state court.