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).

Download PDF
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

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?