Stolp v. Holland
Filing
14
INFORMATIONAL ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/29/16. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GERALD H. STOLP,
12
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
KIM HOLLAND,
15
Respondent.
) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00560-JLT
)
) INFORMATIONAL ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
16
17
In this action, Petitioner raises the following claims: (1) violation of Petitioner’s right to a
18
speedy trial; (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (3) violation of statute of limitations; and
19
(4) violation of Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. (Doc. 1) Petitioner readily acknowledges that
20
only ground one is exhausted and filed a motion to stay the proceedings in this case while he exhausts
21
grounds three and four in state court. (Doc. 3) In his petition, Petitioner indicated that he believed,
22
erroneously, that ground two need not be exhausted because it arose during the course of his direct
23
appeal. On April 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting a stay, requiring Petitioner to file
24
regular status reports, and indicating to Petitioner that an issue is not exhausted merely because it
25
arose during his direct appeal. (Doc. 10)
26
Since that time, Petitioner has filed two status reports, both indicating that he has been unable
27
to pursue exhaustion at the intermediate appellate level because of being placed in administrative
28
segregation, because of being limited in his access to the prison law library, and again requesting legal
1
1
advice regarding whether ground two is exhausted.
2
DISCUSSION
3
As mentioned in the order granting a stay, it is Petitioner’s obligation to diligently pursue
4
exhaustion in state court. Absent diligent efforts, as explained to the Court in regular status reports,
5
the Court will routinely lift a stay and allow the proceedings to continue, regardless of whether
6
Petitioner has successfully exhausted additional issues.
Here, Petitioner has repeatedly asked this Court to advise him whether his ground two is
7
8
exhausted, initially because the issue arose during the direct appeal and later because it was
9
“indirectly” raised in his state petition.
Petitioner is advised that the Court is the deciding tribunal in these proceedings. As such, it
10
11
does not provide legal advice to either side in a case. Accordingly, the Court cannot and will not
12
provide Petitioner with an advisory opinion on whether ground two has been exhausted. As it would
13
with any petitioner, the Court admonishes Petitioner to attempt to exhaust issues he believes may be
14
unexhausted, and to proceed on those he believes are already fully exhausted.
15
Also by way of admonishment, the Court notes that many petitioners find themselves in
16
administrative segregation or other restrictive custodial environments, e.g., transfers to different
17
facilities, prison lockdowns, etc., where an inmate’s legal papers may be temporarily misplaced or
18
otherwise unavailable. It is a normal, albeit unfortunate, part of prison life that access to the prison
19
law library may be limited or even eliminated for periods of time. Those are not “extraordinary
20
circumstances” that excuse diligence in pursuing exhaustion, and they do not relieve Petitioner from
21
his obligation of exerting his best efforts to exhaust his state remedies pursuant to the Court’s April 25,
22
2016 order granting the stay.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
Petitioner is reminded that he has the ongoing obligation to submit regular status reports every
2
sixty days regardless of whether there is any progress in his case. Otherwise, the Court has no way of
3
tracking the progress, if any, of petitioner’s attempts to exhaust issues in state court. His failure to
4
comply will result in the Court lifting the stay and proceeding accordingly.
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 29, 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?