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)

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. § 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