Sahagun v. Williams et al

Filing 38

ORDER that Petitioner's 36 Motion to Stay is Denied and grounds one and two of the 6 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are Dismissed. Respondents must answer ground three of Sahagun's petition by 11/3/2016. Sahagun will have 45 days from service of respondents' answer to file a reply. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 9/19/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Jahuart Sahagun,

5

Petitioner

2:14-cv-0539-JAD-GWF
6

v.

7

Brian E. Williams, et al.,

Order Denying Motion to Stay and
Directing Answer
[ECF No. 36]

8

Respondents

9
10

Petitioner Jahuart Sahagun brings this federal habeas petition to challenge his 2011 state-

11

court conviction for drug trafficking.1 Ground one and portions of ground two in Sahagun’s petition

12

are unexhausted, so I ordered Sahagun to notify the court whether he wished (1) to dismiss his

13

unexhausted claims and proceed on the remaining grounds, (2) dismiss this entire action without

14

prejudice and return to state court to complete the exhaustion process, or (3) move to stay this case

15

while he completes the exhaustion process in state court.2 Sahagun chose the third option. Because

16

he has not met the standards for a stay, I deny his motion, dismiss his unexhausted grounds, and

17

order respondents to answer his sole remaining ground.

18

Discussion

19

To obtain a stay of this action while he returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted

20

claims, Sahagun must show good cause for his failure to first exhaust his claims in state court, that

21

his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and that he has not engaged in intentionally

22

dilatory litigation tactics.3

23

In his motion to stay, Sahagun represents that he wants the court to stay this action while he

24

returns to state court. Alternatively, he requests that I dismiss his unexhausted claims and proceed

25
1

ECF No. 6.

27

2

ECF No. 35.

28

3

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005).

26

Page 1 of 2

1

on his exhausted claims. He does not explain why a stay is appropriate, but he attaches a form to his

2

motion stating that this petition is intended as a protective petition.

3

Filing a protective petition is a valid tactic under limited circumstances. For example, a stay

4

of this action would be appropriate if Sahagun were reasonably confused about the timeliness of his

5

state habeas petition, so he filed this action in case the state court later determined that his state

6

petition was untimely and thus did not toll the federal-limitations period.4 But timeliness is not an

7

issue in this action because Sahagun’s timely filed state petition was dismissed before he filed this

8

petition, and he has not filed any other actions for post-conviction relief in state court that would

9

justify the filing of a protective petition. Because Sahagun has not made the required showing for a

10

stay and a protective petition is not warranted in these circumstances, his motion to stay is denied.

11

Sahagun’s alternative choice is that I dismiss the unexhausted grounds so that he can proceed

12

on the exhausted grounds. In my previous order, I found that ground one is partially unexhausted

13

and that ground two is unexhausted, and I noted that the portion of ground one not addressed by

14

respondents’ dismissal motion is actually duplicative of ground two. I therefore dismiss ground one

15

as unexhausted and duplicative and ground two as unexhausted. Sahagun’s sole remaining claim is

16

ground three.

17

Conclusion

18
19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sahagun’s motion to stay [ECF No. 36] is
DENIED, and grounds one and two of the petition [ECF No. 6] are DISMISSED.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents must answer ground three of Sahagun’s

21 petition by November 3, 2016. Sahagun will have 45 days from service of respondents’ answer to
2015.
22

file a reply.

23

Dated this 19th day of September, 2016
6

24

_________________________________
_____________ ________
_
_______
______ _
_
Jennifer A. Dorsey
ennifer A Dorsey
if
s
United States District Judge
d States
tate
ct Judge
t d

25
26
27
28

4

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 406–17 (2005).
Page 2 of 2