Torres v. Virga
Filing
60
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/18/15 vacating 57 Motion to Stay. Also, RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 7/29/15 motion to stay habeas proceedings pending exhaustion 57 be granted. Peti tioner be ordered to present all of his unexhausted federal habeas claims as well as the facts in support thereof, to the California Supreme Court in a state habeas corpus petition to be filed within 30 days from the resolution by the United States S upreme Court of Montgomery v. Louisiana, Case No. 14-280. This action be stayed and the Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close the case. Petitioner be ordered to file and serve a status report in this case on the first court day of each month; and petitioner be ordered to file and serve a motion to lift the stay of this action, along with a proposed amended petition containing only exhausted claims, within 30 days after petitioner is serve with the California Supreme Court's order disposing of the state exhaustion petition. MOTION to STAY 57 referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. 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
JUAN TORRES,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:12-cv-1358 TLN DAD P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER AND
TIM VIRGA, Warden, et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through appointed counsel with a petition for a
18
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order dated February 17, 2015, this
19
action was stayed for the fifth time. Petitioner was directed to file a status report before the
20
expiration of the stay and to notify the court and opposing counsel of the status of several
21
petitions for certiorari pending before the United States Supreme Court in the event that the stay
22
had not been lifted before the period of the stay had expired. On April 15, 2015, petitioner filed
23
the required status report.
24
On July 29, 2015, petitioner filed a motion to stay these proceedings pending the
25
resolution of a state exhaustion petition to be filed in the California courts, and pending a decision
26
by the United States Supreme Court in Montgomery v. Louisiana, Case No. 14-280. Therein,
27
petitioner explains that he seeks a stay in order to return to state court and exhaust the factual
28
basis of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, pursuant to the decision in Gonzalez v.
1
1
Wong, 667 F.3d 965, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (ordering the district court to stay federal habeas
2
proceedings to allow the petitioner to present newly discovered evidence to the California
3
Supreme Court). (ECF No. 57 at 4.) Petitioner also informs this court that the briefing schedule
4
in Montgomery extends through September 9, 2015, and that the United States Supreme Court
5
has not yet set a date for oral argument in that case. (Id.)
6
Respondent has filed a statement of non-opposition to petitioner’s motion for a stay.
7
(ECF No. 59.) He recommends that petitioner “have 30 days from the resolution of Montgomery
8
v. Louisiana to commence the exhaustion of his state court remedies and 30 days from the date of
9
exhaustion to return to federal court.” (Id.)
10
A court may stay a petition and hold it in abeyance pursuant to either Kelly v. Small, 315
11
F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) or Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (1995). King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d
12
1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). The procedure varies depending on whether the petition presents
13
fully exhausted claims, or a mix of exhausted and unexhausted claims. Under Kelly, the
14
petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted claims, and the court then stays and
15
holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner the opportunity
16
to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims. Id. (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71.)
17
Later, the petitioner amends his petition to add the newly-exhausted claims to the original
18
petition. Id. Under Rhines, a court may stay a mixed petition, i.e., one containing exhausted and
19
unexhausted claims, to allow a petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state courts.
20
Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. Under Rhines, “‘stay-and-abeyance is only appropriate when the district
21
court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in
22
state court.’” Kings, 564 F.3d at 1139 (quoting Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78). The Kelly
23
procedure, which remains available after Rhines, does not require a showing of good cause.
24
King, 564 F.3d at 1140. Petitioner argues that he meets the requirements for a stay of this action
25
under both the Kelly and Rhines decisions.
26
In light of respondent’s statement of non-opposition to petitioner’s motion to stay, and
27
good cause appearing, the court recommends a stay of these proceedings under the procedure
28
outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Rhines.
2
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the August 28, 2015 hearing on petitioner’s motion to
1
2
stay habeas proceedings is vacated.
3
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
4
1. Petitioner’s July 29, 2015 motion to stay habeas proceedings pending exhaustion (ECF
5
No. 57) be granted;
6
2. Petitioner be ordered to present all of his unexhausted federal habeas claims, as well as
7
the facts in support thereof, to the California Supreme Court in a state habeas corpus petition to
8
be filed within thirty days from the resolution by the United States Supreme Court of
9
Montgomery v. Louisiana, Case No. 14-280;
10
11
3. This action be stayed and the Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close
the case;
12
13
4. Petitioner be ordered to file and serve a status report in this case on the first court day
of each month; and
14
5. Petitioner be ordered to file and serve a motion to lift the stay of this action, along with
15
a proposed amended petition containing only exhausted claims, within thirty days after petitioner
16
is served with the California Supreme Court’s order disposing of the state exhaustion petition.
17
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
18
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
19
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
20
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
21
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
22
shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file
23
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
24
Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
25
1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue
26
in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing
27
/////
28
/////
3
1
Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it
2
enters a final order adverse to the applicant).
3
Dated: August 18, 2015
4
5
6
7
DAD:8
Torres1358.stay(5)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?