Nagy v. Davey et al
Filing
32
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/28/15 recommending that petitioner's motion to re-instate the stay of this action construed as a renewed motion for a stay and abeyance 31 be denied; and petitioner be directed to file a traverse, if any, in support of his exhausted claims within 30 days of any order adopting these findings and recommendations. MOTION to reinstate stay of abeyance 31 referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DANIEL NAGY,
12
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-2948 WBS DAD P
Petitioner,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
D. DAVEY, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion to re-instate
19
the stay of this action, which this court has construed as a renewed motion for a stay and
20
abeyance.
BACKGROUND
21
22
By way of background, on November 7, 2011, petitioner commenced this action by filing
23
a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2009 judgment of conviction on multiple state
24
criminal charges. (Doc. No. 1) On February 22, 2012, respondent filed an answer to the petition.
25
(Doc. No. 15) On April 6, 2012, upon review of the petition, then-assigned Magistrate Judge
26
Moulds determined that the petition was a “mixed” petition containing both exhausted and
27
unexhausted claims and granted petitioner time to file a motion for a stay and abeyance. (Doc.
28
No. 19)
1
1
On November 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Moulds construed petitioner’s motion for a stay
2
and abeyance as including a request to delete his unexhausted claims and granted that request.
3
(Doc. No. 23) Magistrate Judge Moulds also issued findings and recommendations,
4
recommending that this action be stayed pursuant to procedure outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315
5
F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1148-
6
49 (9th Cir. 2007), pending petitioner’s exhaustion of his state judicial remedies. (Id.) On
7
December 5, 2012, the assigned District Judge adopted those findings and recommendations in
8
full and stayed this action. (Doc. No. 25)
9
More than a year later, on April 3, 2014, counsel for respondent filed a motion to lift the
10
stay of this action, representing to the court that petitioner had not filed any state habeas petitions
11
since the court had granted his motion for a stay. (Doc. No. 26) Respondent asked the court to
12
proceed to disposition on the petition as amended pursuant to the court’s November 9, 2012
13
order. (Id.) On June 6, 2014, the undersigned issued an order requiring petitioner to show cause
14
in writing why the previously granted stay should not be lifted with him being required to proceed
15
in this federal habeas action only with respect to his already exhausted claims. (Doc. No. 28)
16
The undersigned also invited petitioner to oppose respondent’s request by explaining to the court
17
any efforts he had undertaken to exhaust his unexhausted claims and warned him that his failure
18
to respond to the order to show cause would result in an order granting respondent’s motion to lift
19
the previously entered stay and requiring petitioner to proceed only on his exhausted claims. (Id.)
20
Petitioner did not respond to the court’s order to show cause in any way. Accordingly, the court
21
granted respondent’s motion to lift the stay of this action and granted petitioner thirty days to
22
either file a traverse or notify the court that he did not intend to file a traverse. (Doc. No. 29)
23
Instead of filing a traverse or notice with the court, petitioner has filed the pending motion to re-
24
instate the stay of this action, which this court has construed as a renewed motion for a stay and
25
abeyance. (Doc. No. 31)
26
DISCUSSION
27
The court has discretion to stay a federal habeas proceeding and hold an amended,
28
exhausted habeas petition in abeyance. See Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070 (“The exercise of discretion
2
1
to stay the federal proceeding is particularly appropriate when an outright dismissal will render it
2
unlikely or impossible for the petitioner to return to federal court within the one-year limitation
3
period imposed” on federal habeas petitioners.). However, district courts may not abuse their
4
discretion by staying habeas proceedings indefinitely. See Calderon v. United States District
5
Court (“Taylor”), 134 F.3d 981, 988 n.11 (9th Cir. 1998). See also Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1071 (“If
6
petitioner fails to act within the allotted time, the stay may be vacated nunc pro tunc as of the date
7
the district court enters the stay. . . .”).
8
9
Here, the court finds that petitioner has unreasonably delayed in his pursuit of his federal
habeas corpus claims. See Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1071 (indicating reasonable time limits would
10
allow petitioner 30 days to file a petition in state court and 30 days to return to federal court after
11
final rejection of claims by state court). In his renewed motion for a stay and abeyance, petitioner
12
notes that he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the San Joaquin County Superior
13
Court on June 22, 2012, prior to this court entering a stay of this federal habeas action. (Pet’r’s
14
Mot. for Stay & Abeyance 1-2.) According to petitioner, the San Joaquin County Superior Court
15
denied his petition back on July 24, 2012, and told him that he needed to present documentary
16
evidence to support his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. More than two years after the
17
superior court’s denial of his June 2012 petition, petitioner claims that he is still working on
18
obtaining copies of his trial transcript to file another petition seeking habeas relief from the San
19
Joaquin County Superior Court. (Id. at 1.) Petitioner contends that he has twice been transferred
20
to different prisons and, as a result, twice lost his paper work related to this case since this court
21
stayed this action back in 2012. (Id.)
22
These prison transfers – commonplace circumstances of many pro se petitioners – simply
23
do not justify petitioner’s substantial delay in exhausting his unexhausted claims in this case.
24
Moreover, according to the California Supreme Court’s website, to date, petitioner has still not
25
filed any petition for writ of habeas corpus with that court in an attempt to exhaust his
26
unexhausted claims. Based on the record in this case, the court concludes that it would be an
27
abuse of discretion to further stay these proceedings. See Taylor, 134 F.3d at 988 n.11 (it is an
28
abuse of discretion to stay habeas proceedings indefinitely or for a petitioner merely seeking to
3
1
stall the habeas corpus process); see also Ryan v. Gonzalez, ___U.S.___,___, 133 S. Ct. 696, 709
2
(2013) (“But even if [the petitioner] could show that the claim was both unexhausted and not
3
procedurally defaulted, an indefinite stay would be inappropriate.”); Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d
4
1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[W]e have never authorized . . . an indefinite, potentially lengthy
5
stay in a habeas case”).
6
Accordingly, the court will recommend that petitioner’s renewed motion for a stay and
7
abeyance be denied and that this action proceed only on petitioner’s already exhausted claims.
8
9
10
11
12
13
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Petitioner’s motion to re-instate the stay of this action construed as a renewed motion
for a stay and abeyance (Doc. No. 31) be denied; and
2. Petitioner be directed to file a traverse, if any, in support of his exhausted claims within
thirty days of any order adopting these findings and recommendations.
14
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
15
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
16
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
17
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
18
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
19
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
20
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
21
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
22
Dated: July 28, 2015
23
24
25
26
DAD:9
nagy2948.styd
27
28
4
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?