Pinuelas v. Lewis et al

Filing 7

ORDER STAYING ACTION. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is construed as a protective petition and STAYED and held in abeyance so that Pinuelas can exhaust his unexhausted claims in the state courts. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/08/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 RUBEN M. PINUELAS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 14-cv-00045-WHO (PR) ORDER STAYING ACTION GREG D. LEWIS, et al., Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Pinuelas filed this federal habeas action, which contains only 18 unexhausted claims, to challenge a state parole revocation. He moves to stay the petition 19 so that he can exhaust his state judicial remedies. 20 Prisoners in state custody seeking to challenge collaterally in federal habeas 21 proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state 22 judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting 23 the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and 24 every claim they seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy, 25 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). 26 The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is construed as a protective petition and 27 STAYED and held in abeyance so that Pinuelas can exhaust his unexhausted claims in the 28 state courts. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (prisoners who run risk 1 of having federal statute of limitation expire while exhausting their state remedies may 2 avoid this predicament "by filing a 'protective' petition in federal court and asking the 3 federal court to stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are 4 exhausted"); see also Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005) (district court has 5 authority to stay mixed petition where there was good cause for petitioner's failure to 6 exhaust claim in state court and the claim is potentially meritorious). 7 The Clerk is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the action. Nothing 8 further will take place in this matter until Pinuelas exhausts his claims and, within 30 days 9 of completing the exhaustion process, moves to reopen the action and dissolve the stay. 10 Pinuelas's motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2 and 6) are United States District Court Northern District of California 11 DENIED as moot, the filing fee having been paid. The Clerk shall terminate Docket Nos. 12 2 and 6, and administratively close the action. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 8, 2014 _________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RUBEN PINUELAS, Case Number: CV14-00045 WHO Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. GREG D. LEWIS, et al., Defendant. / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on May 8, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail. Ruben M. Pinuelas P41035 Pelican Bay State Prison SHU/D-9 #222 P.O. Box 7500 Crescent City, CA 95532 Dated: May 8, 2014 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jean Davis, Deputy Clerk

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?