Cuevas v. Chappell

Filing 6

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 5 Motion to Stay; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Administratively closing case until Court issues Order lifting Stay. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7

No. C 12-01161 YGR (PR)

RAFAEL CUEVAS,
Petitioner,
vs.
MATTHEW MULLIN, Warden,

8

Respondent.

9

/

ORDER STAYING HABEAS
PROCEEDINGS; DIRECTING
PETITIONER TO FILE QUARTERLY
STATUS REPORTS; AND DIRECTING
CLERK TO ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSE THIS CASE UNTIL THE COURT
ISSUES ORDER LIFTING STAY

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Petitioner has also filed a motion to stay his federal petition while he exhausts his remedies
in state court.
Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge in federal habeas proceedings either the fact

16

or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies by presenting the

17

highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim

18

they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c) ; Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-

19

16 (1982). If available state remedies have not been exhausted as to all claims, the district court

20

must dismiss the petition. Id. at 510; Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1988). A

21

dismissal solely for failure to exhaust is not a bar to returning to federal court after exhausting

22

available state remedies. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).

23

Petitioners may seek a stay of the petition pursuant to Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408,

24

416 (2005), under which a prisoner may file a protective petition in federal court and ask the court to

25

stay federal habeas proceedings until all state remedies are exhausted. District courts have the

26

authority to issue stays, and the habeas statute does not deprive them of that authority. Rhines v.

27

Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-278 (2005). A stay is appropriate where the district court determines

28

1

that good cause existed for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims in state court, and that such

2

claims are potentially meritorious. Id.; see also Pace, 544 U.S. at 416.

3

Here, it appears that good cause exists for Petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims on direct
appeal because his claims could be raised by way of state habeas corpus. Moreover, the claims state

5

cognizable bases for federal habeas relief. This is Petitioner's first habeas petition, and there is no

6

evidence that he seeks the stay for improper purposes. See Fetterly v. Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301-

7

02 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that a stay for the purpose of permitting exhaustion of unexhausted

8

claims should be granted only if the claims petitioner seeks to pursue are cognizable under § 2254;

9

there is a likelihood of prejudice to petitioner if the stay is not granted; and there is no evidence that

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

the motion for a stay is brought to delay, vex, or harass, or that the request is an abuse of the writ).

11

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's request for a stay (docket no. 5).

12

These proceedings are hereby STAYED pending Petitioner's exhaustion of his state judicial

13

remedies. Petitioner must act diligently in exhausting his state judicial remedies, or the stay may be

14

lifted. He must file quarterly reports describing the progress of his state court proceedings,

15

commencing thirty (30) days from the date of this Order and continuing every ninety (90) days

16

thereafter until his state court proceedings are terminated. He must also attach to his status reports

17

copies of the cover page of any document that he files with or receives from the state courts relating

18

to the claims.

19

The Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of this

20

action. Nothing further will take place in this action until Petitioner receives a final decision from

21

the highest state court and, within thirty (30) days of doing so, moves to reopen the action, lift the

22

Court's stay and amend the stayed petition to add the newly-exhausted claims.

23

Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) is GRANTED.

24

This Order terminates Docket nos. 2 and 5.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

DATED: May 7, 2012
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

27
28
G:\PRO-SE\YGR\HC.12\Cuevas1161.GrantSTAY.frm

2