Padilla v. Unknown

Filing 11

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. Petitioner's Quarterly Report due by 2/6/2018 and continuing every 90 days thereafter until his state court proceedings are terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 1/9/18. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RONNIE PADILLA, Petitioner, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 v. D. DAVIES, Warden, Respondent. Case No. 17-cv-05007-DMR (PR) 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 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed his initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 14 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkts. 8, 9. Plaintiff 15 has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this action. Dkt. 5. 16 Petitioner admits that his petition contains one exhausted claim (i.e., “Ground/Claim #1 in 17 federal writ petition”) as well as “unexhausted claims that have not been exhausted before the 18 California State Courts.” Dkt. 10 at 1, 5. Therefore, he requests a stay of the proceedings while 19 he completes the process of exhausting his unexhausted claims in state court. Id. at 5. 20 Prisoners in state custody seeking to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings 21 either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, 22 either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court 23 available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in 24 federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). The 25 exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim (1) has been “fairly presented” to the 26 state courts, see Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996); or (2) no state remedy remains 27 available, see Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). Petitioner states that he intends 28 to file a state habeas petition in the state superior court, which includes the claims that were not 1 exhausted at the time he filed the instant federal petition. See Dkt. 10 at 4-5. Accordingly, the 2 instant federal petition is a mixed petition. 3 District courts have the authority to issue stays of mixed petitions and the Antiterrorism 4 and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) does not deprive them of that authority. Rhines v. 5 Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). However, the district court’s discretion to stay a mixed 6 petition is circumscribed by AEDPA’s stated purposes of reducing delay in the execution of 7 criminal sentences and encouraging petitioners to seek relief in the state courts before filing their 8 claims in federal court. Id. at 277. 9 Because the use of a stay and abeyance procedure has the potential to undermine these dual purposes of AEDPA, its use is only appropriate where the district court has first determined that 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust the claims in state court and that the 12 claims are potentially meritorious. Id. Here, the court finds that Petitioner has not engaged in 13 dilatory tactics and the unexhausted claims appear to be potentially meritorious. 14 Good cause appearing, Petitioner’s request for a stay is GRANTED, dkt. 10, and the 15 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is construed as a protective petition and STAYED so that 16 Petitioner can exhaust his unexhausted claims in the state courts. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 17 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (prisoners who run risk of having federal statute of limitation expire while 18 exhausting their state remedies may avoid this predicament “by filing a ‘protective’ petition in 19 federal court and asking the federal court to stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings until 20 state remedies are exhausted”); see also Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78 (district court has authority to 21 stay mixed petition where there was good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust claim in state 22 court and the claim is potentially meritorious). 23 Petitioner must act diligently in exhausting his state judicial remedies, or the stay may be 24 lifted. He must file quarterly reports describing the progress of his state court proceedings, 25 commencing twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order and continuing every ninety (90) 26 days thereafter until his state court proceedings are terminated. He must also attach to his status 27 reports copies of the cover page of any document that he files with or receives from the state 28 courts relating to the claims. 2 1 The Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of 2 this action. Nothing further will take place in this action until Petitioner receives a final decision 3 from the highest state court and, within twenty-eight (28) days of doing so, moves to reopen the 4 action, lift the court’s stay and amend the stayed petition to add the newly-exhausted claims. 5 Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 9. 6 This Order terminates Docket Nos. 9 and 10. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: January 9, 2018 9 10 DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 RONNIE PADILLA, Case No. 4:17-cv-05007-DMR Plaintiff, 5 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 7 D. DAVIES, Defendant. 8 9 10 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 That on January 9, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 16 17 18 Ronnie Padilla ID: AP7887 California State Prison Corcoran P.O. Box 3466 Corcoran, CA 93212 19 20 Dated: January 9, 2018 21 22 Susan Y. Soong Clerk, United States District Court 23 24 25 26 27 By:________________________ Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable DONNA M. RYU 28 4

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?