Gonzalez v. Knipp
Filing
9
ORDER to Stay Proceedings and Administratively Close the Case. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/3/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
DIEGO GONZALEZ,
9
Petitioner,
v.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C-12-4557 EMC (pr)
WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden,
12
ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THE
CASE
Respondent.
___________________________________/
13
14
15
16
Petitioner has filed a motion to hold his federal habeas petition in abeyance so that he can
return to the California state courts to present one or more unexhausted claims.
There are two kinds of stay and abeyance proceedings available in a habeas action: the
17
Rhines stay and the King/Kelly stay. A stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), “is only
18
appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to
19
exhaust his claims first in state court,” the claims are not meritless, and there are no intentionally
20
dilatory litigation tactics by the petitioner. Id. at 277-78. Petitioner has not satisfied the criteria for
21
a Rhines stay because he has not explained why he did not exhaust the claims before filing his
22
federal petition and he has not shown that the unidentified claims he wants to present to the state
23
courts are not meritless.
24
The King/Kelly stay provides an alternative method to deal with a petitioner who has some
25
unexhausted claims he wants to present in his federal habeas action. Under the procedure outlined
26
in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey,
27
481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007), “(1) a petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted
28
claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing the
petitioner later amends his petition and re-attaches the newly-exhausted claims to the original
3
petition.” King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1134 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71). A
4
petitioner seeking to avail himself of the King/Kelly three-step procedure is not required to show
5
good cause as under Rhines. See id. at 1141. Here, Petitioner satisfies the only currently applicable
6
requirement for a King/Kelly stay, i.e., that his petition has no unexhausted claims. The claims in
7
the petition appear to have been exhausted, as both were discussed in the California Court of
8
Appeal’s opinion affirming Petitioner’s conviction. The King/Kelly stay does not appear to require
9
this Court to decide whether the claims relate back at the time it considers whether to grant a stay.
10
Whether the claims relate back to the petition can be decided when he returns after exhausting state
11
For the Northern District of California
petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) the
2
United States District Court
1
court remedies and moves to amend his petition to add those newly-exhausted claims. The Court
12
will grant a King/Kelly stay so that Petitioner may exhaust state court remedies for all the claims he
13
wishes to present to this Court.
14
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion to hold his petition in abeyance is
15
GRANTED. (Docket # 7.) This action is now STAYED and the Clerk shall
16
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the action. Nothing further will take place in this action until
17
Petitioner exhausts state court remedies for any unexhausted claims and then moves to reopen this
18
action, lift the stay and amend his petition to add any new claims. Petitioner must act diligently to
19
get his state court petition filed and promptly return to this Court – i.e., within thirty days after his
20
state court proceedings have concluded. See Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070.
21
In light of the stay, the briefing schedule set in the Order To Show Cause is vacated and
22
Respondent’s motion for an extension of the deadline to respond to the petition is dismissed as moot.
23
(Docket # 8.)
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 3, 2013
26
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
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?