Mizner v. Grounds

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Charles. R. Breyer denying 15 Motion to Stay. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. CV 12-00288 CRB

ANTHONY ROBERT MIZNER,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY

Petitioner,
v.
RANDY GROUNDS,
Respondent.

/

16
17

Petitioner has moved (dkt. 15) to “stay and abey” these proceedings pending the

18

resolution of his anticipated motion in state court for resentencing under California’s

19

recently-enacted Proposition 36. See Cal. Penal Code § 1170.126. Respondent opposes on

20

the grounds that at least one, and possibly two, of Petitioner’s claims will remain in this case

21

regardless of the outcome of state proceedings; that Petitioner will later be able to raise

22

constitutional challenges to the resentencing proceedings without running afoul of the bar on

23

second or successive habeas petitions; and that granting a stay would be inconsistent with the

24

purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).

25

Petitioner has not presented a so-called “mixed” petition with exhausted and

26

unexhausted claims, see Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 271 (2005); rather, he seeks to stay

27

his petition raising fully exhausted claims based on the possibility that additional claims

28

may–or may not–become ripe as a result of his resentencing proceedings. Petitioner cites no
precedent supporting a stay in such a situation, but says it is appropriate because, according

1

to Petitioner, he might be barred from later raising claims related to his resentencing. The

2

precedent cited to the Court, see Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788, 2796 (2010)

3

(referring to “an exception to § 2244(b) for a second application raising a claim that would

4

have been unripe had the petitioner presented it in his first application” (citing Panetti v.

5

Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 947 (2007))), and the government itself, Opp’n at 3 n.2, suggest

6

otherwise.
Because the state resentencing proceedings will not resolve at least some of

8

Petitioner’s claims, and Petitioner’s hypothetical claims regarding his resentencing

9

proceeding are not yet ripe, the Court concludes that a stay is inappropriate and inconsistent

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

with AEDPA’s emphasis on speedy resolution of federal habeas petitions. Cf. Rhines, 544

11

U.S. at 278. The Court therefore DENIES Petitioner’s motion.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 20, 2013

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2012\288\order re stay.wpd

2