Rios v. Frauenheim

Filing 52

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY; GRANTING THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE by Judge Beth Labson Freeman 51 Motion to Stay. Traverse due by 4/16/2021. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 5:15-cv-01357-BLF Document 52 Filed 02/19/21 Page 1 of 2

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

ULYSSES ALEXANDER RIOS,
Petitioner,
v.

13
14
15

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,
Respondent.

Case No. 15-01357 BLF (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY; GRANTING THIRD
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
TRAVERSE
(Docket No. 51)

16
17
18

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

19

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction out of Santa Clara County.

20

Respondent filed an answer on June 15, 2020. Dkt. No. 44. After being granted a second

21

extension of time, Petitioner’s traverse was due by February 11, 2021. Dkt. No. 50. On

22

February 8, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for a motion for stay and abeyance under

23

“Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2008),” stating that lack of access to the law library

24

due to the pandemic makes it impossible for him to file a proper traverse. Dkt. No. 51.

25

The motion for an indefinite stay is DENIED. First of all, a stay under Rhines is

26

appropriate when a petitioner has shown good cause to return to state courts to exhaust

27

potentially meritorious claims that were unexhausted at the time a federal habeas action

28

was filed. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). This is not the situation that

Case 5:15-cv-01357-BLF Document 52 Filed 02/19/21 Page 2 of 2

1

Petitioner faces. Accordingly, a stay under Rhines is not applicable. Furthermore, the

2

Court recognizes that despite challenges presented by the pandemic, other actions filed by

3

prisoners in pro se have been steadily proceeding. Accordingly, the motion for an

4

indefinite stay until the pandemic passes is DENEID.

5

In the interest of justice, Petitioner shall be granted a third extension of time to file a

6

traverse. Petitioner shall file a traverse no later than fifty-six (56) days from the date

7

this order is filed. Petitioner may continue to file requests for additional time as needed,

8

but he must continue to make a good faith effort to prosecute this action in a diligent

9

manner.
This order terminates Docket No. 51.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED

12
13

Dated: _February 19, 2021__

________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Order Denying Stay; Granting 3rd EOT to file Trav
P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.15\01357Rios 3rd.eot-trav.docx

26
27
28

2