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)

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