Huggins v. Martel

Filing 46

ORDER RE MOTION TO STAY PENDING EXHAUSTION re 44 Joint MOTION to Stay filed by Michael Martel, Michael James Huggins. Court ORDERS the parties to jointly submit a statement regarding any unexhausted portions of Petitioner's guilt phase claims within 60(sixty) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/3/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
MICHAEL JAMES HUGGINS,

12
13
14

No. C 06-07254 YGR

Petitioner,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER RE MOTION TO STAY PENDING
EXHAUSTION

v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of San Quentin
State Prison,
Respondent.

15
/
16
17
18

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Michael James Huggins is a condemned inmate at San Quentin State Prison. On

19
September 27, 2012, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to stay these proceedings pending a
20
21
22
23
24

competency determination. On January 10, 2013, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
continue the competency determination pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in
Ryan v. Gonzales, No. 10-930, cert. granted 132 S. Ct. 1738 (2012). On January 8, 2013, the
Supreme Court issued a decision, Ryan v. Gonzales, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 696. Based on Ryan,

25

Respondent moved to vacate the stay; the Court denied Respondent's motion and ordered the parties

26

to submit a proposed schedule and procedures for determining Petitioner's competency.

27
28

The parties have since jointly submitted a Motion to Stay Federal Habeas Corpus
Proceedings Pending Petitioner's Exhaustion In State Court of Claim Pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia.

1
2

Petitioner avers that he has a viable claim that he is ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia,

3

536 U.S. 304 (2002) (holding that execution of the mentally retarded violates the Eighth

4

Amendment). Accordingly, Petitioner and Respondent jointly move to stay federal proceedings

5

pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (authorizing a district court to stay federal habeas

6

proceedings while a petitioner pursues unexhausted claims in state court), while Petitioner pursues

7

his Atkins claim in state court.

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and agrees that allowing the state court to
resolve Petitioner's Atkins claim prior to continuing with further federal court proceedings is the
most efficient course of action. The Court notes, however, that Petitioner may have other
unexhausted claims in his federal petition currently on file.1 At a minimum, any unexhausted

12
portions of Petitioner's guilt-phase claims, which would survive even if Petitioner is found to be
13
14
15
16
17

ineligible for execution under Atkins, should also be brought to the state court's attention.
Otherwise, there is a strong likelihood that Petitioner will again have to return to state court after the
Atkins claim is resolved.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to jointly submit a statement regarding any

18

unexhausted portions of Petitioner's guilt phase claims within 60 (sixty) days of the date of this

19

Order. After review of that statement, the Court will issue an order regarding abeyance.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 3, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23
24
25
1

26
27
28

The Court is aware that Petitioner has the option to file an Amended Petition. Nonetheless,
the Court finds that the most efficacious course of action at this juncture is for Petitioner to litigate
as many unexhausted guilt phase claims as possible when he is also litigating his Atkins claim before
the state court.
2