Quiroz v. Clark

Filing 6

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 2 , 5 Motions for Stay of Proceedings signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/14/2009. (Sant Agata, S)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia cd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JOAQUIN RAMON QUIROZ, Petitioner, v. KENT CLARK, Warden, Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:09-CV-01131 GSA HC ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS [Docs. #2, 5]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has returned his consent/decline form indicating consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. On June 29, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Along with the petition, he filed a motion for stay and abeyance. He filed a second motion for stay on July 10, 2009. Petitioner seeks a stay of his federal proceedings pending exhaustion of unspecified, additional claims. DISCUSSION A district court has discretion to stay a petition which it may validly consider on the merits. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1998); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). However, the Supreme Court recently held that this discretion is circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276. In light of AEDPA's objectives, "stay and abeyance [is] available only in limited circumstances" and "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." Id. at 277. Even if Petitioner were to demonstrate good cause for that failure, "the district court would abuse its discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless." Id. In this case, the Court does not find good cause to excuse Petitioner's failure to exhaust. Petitioner fails to specify the ground he seeks to exhaust; therefore, the Court cannot determine whether a stay would be appropriate. Accordingly, Petitioner's motions for stay of the proceedings are hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

July 14, 2009

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia cd

2