Snowden v. Rackley

Filing 9

ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE 7 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/14/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DARNELL SNOWDEN,

10
11

Petitioner,
ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE
CASE

v.

12
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 12-3983 SI (pr)

R. J. RACKLEY, warden,

13

Respondent.

14

/

15

Upon initial review of the petition and accompanying documents, the court denied

16

petitioner's motion to stay the proceedings without prejudice to him filing a new motion for a

17

stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), or under King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.

18

2009), and Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). The features of those two types of

19

stays were discussed in the order on initial review (Docket # 6).

20

Petitioner has filed a motion for a King/Kelly stay, asking the court to stay these

21

proceedings so that he can return to the California state courts to have some unexhausted claims

22

heard. He also has filed an amended petition with his motion to stay. The amended petition has

23

only one claim, and state court remedies allegedly have been exhausted for that claim. Petitioner

24

satisfies the only currently applicable requirement for a King/Kelly stay, i.e., that his amended

25

petition has no unexhausted claims. The King/Kelly stay does not appear to require the court to

26

decide whether the claims relate back at the time it considers whether to grant a stay. Whether

27

the claims relate back to the petition can be decided when he returns after exhausting state court

28

remedies and moves to amend his amended petition to add those newly-exhausted claims. The

1

court will grant a King/Kelly stay so that petitioner may exhaust state court remedies for all the

2

claims he wishes to present to this court. Petitioner must file his unexhausted claims in state

3

court within thirty days, and must return to federal court within thirty days of a final decision

4

by the state courts on those claims. See Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070.

5

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's "motion to stay in abeyance" is GRANTED.

6

(Docket # 7.) This action is now STAYED and the clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE

7

the action. Nothing further will take place in this action until petitioner exhausts state court

8

remedies for any unexhausted claims and, within thirty days of doing so, moves to reopen this

9

action, lift the court’s stay and amend his petition to add any new claims. Petitioner must act

10

diligently to get his state court petition filed and promptly return to federal court after his state

11

court proceedings have concluded.

12

Finally, it is not clear to the court whether petitioner actually signed his motion to stay

13

or his amended petition: his name is written at the foot of each document, but appears to be

14

printed below a signature line rather than as the signature. Petitioner is cautioned that he must

15

personally sign each and every document filed in this action, and failure to do so may result in

16

the document being disregarded.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED: November 14, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2