Saucedo v. Brazelton
Filing
11
ORDER TO STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE 7 8 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/23/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
STEVEN R. SAUCEDO, JR.,
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
No. C 13-1696 SI (pr)
Petitioner,
ORDER TO STAY AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE
v.
P. D. BRAZELTON, warden,
Respondent.
/
INTRODUCTION
15
Steven R. Saucedo filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his Santa
16
Clara County Superior Court conviction. Respondent filed an answer to the petition and asserted
17
that state judicial remedies had not been exhausted for one of petitioner’s claims, i.e., the claim
18
that petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner then filed a traverse as well
19
as a motion for a stay and abeyance of these proceedings so that he could exhaust his ineffective
20
assistance of counsel claim. Respondent did not oppose the motion for a stay and abeyance.
21
22
DISCUSSION
23
Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas
24
proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are required first to exhaust state
25
judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the
26
highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim
27
they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). A petition that contains both
28
exhausted and unexhausted claims is a "mixed" petition. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269,
1
277 (2005). The court cannot adjudicate the merits of a habeas petition containing any claim
2
as to which state remedies have not been exhausted, such as a mixed petition. See Rose v.
3
Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) (petition may be denied (but not
4
granted) notwithstanding failure to exhaust).
5
Petitioner has moved for a stay and abeyance so that he may exhaust state court remedies
6
as to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which he concedes is unexhausted. He can
7
obtain a stay only if the claims are not meritless, there are no intentionally dilatory litigation
8
tactics by the petitioner, and the "district court determines there was good cause for the
9
petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.". See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78.
10
The first two requirements are easily met here: petitioner's unexhausted claim does not appear
11
to be meritless and he has not engaged in dilatory tactics. The third Rhine requirement presents
12
a closer call.
13
In an effort to show good cause for his failure to exhaust, petitioner has offered two
14
reasons. First, he has alleged that trial counsel failed to provide to him certain materials from
15
his case despite his requests for those materials. Although petitioner has not demonstrated that
16
trial counsel actually has the materials that he thinks she has not turned over to him, he arguably
17
may have been laboring under that impression until as late as November 8, 2012, when trial
18
counsel sent him case materials with a cover letter that stated the enclosure was "a copy of the
19
entirety of [his] trial file." Docket # 8 at 22. By that time, only about five months remained in
20
petitioner's one-year AEDPA limitations period. Second, petitioner became separated from his
21
legal papers starting on about February 28, 2013, when his inmate helper who was in possession
22
of petitioner's legal papers was put in administrative segregation and prison officials would not
23
deliver petitioner's papers to petitioner. When petitioner became separated from his legal papers,
24
less than two months remained before his AEDPA habeas deadline. He has stated that he did
25
not receive those papers by the time his AEDPA habeas deadline arrived. The fact that he was
26
unable to access his paperwork during the months leading up to the deadline to file the federal
27
petition helps provide good cause for his failure to first exhaust state court remedies, even
28
2
1
though the regulation he has cited, 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3191, does not provide authority for his
2
contention that prison officials had a legal obligation to sort through the other inmate's property
3
to find paperwork related to petitioner's case. The combination of these two circumstances
4
provide good cause to excuse petitioner's failure to exhaust state court remedies before he filed
5
his federal petition containing the unexhausted claim. He therefore is entitled to a Rhines stay.
6
7
CONCLUSION
8
Petitioner's motion for a stay and abeyance is GRANTED. (Docket # 8.) This action is
9
now STAYED and the clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the action. Nothing further
10
will take place in this action until petitioner exhausts any unexhausted claims and, within thirty
11
days of doing so, moves to reopen this action, lift the court’s stay and amend his petition to add
12
any new claims. Petitioner must act diligently to get his state court petition filed and promptly
13
return to federal court after his state court proceedings have concluded.
14
15
16
17
Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file his traverse is GRANTED. (Docket
# 7.) The traverse (Docket # 10) is deemed to have been timely filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 23, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?