Holden v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 17

ORDER Granting Petitioner's 14 Motion for Issuance of Stay and Abeyance of the Federal Habeas Corpus proceeding. Petitioner's 15 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Petition is Denied as moot. This action is Stayed pending final resolution of petitioner's postconviction habeas petition. The grant of a stay is conditioned upon petitioner returning to federal court with a motion to reopen the case within 45 days of the issuance of the remittitur by the Supreme Court of Nevada. The Clerk shall administratively close this action until such time as the court grants a motion to reopen the matter. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/13/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
JIM BASS HOLDEN,
11
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:14-cv-00894-APG-PAL

12
vs.

ORDER

13
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
14
Respondents.
15
16
17
This habeas petition is before the court pursuant to petitioner’s counseled motion for a stay in
18
accordance with Rhines v. Weber and motion for leave and extension of time to file a second amended
19
petition (Dkt. #s 14,15). Respondents have not opposed either motion.
20
In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the Supreme Court placed limitations upon the
21
discretion of the court to facilitate habeas petitioners’ return to state court to exhaust claims. The
22
Rhines Court stated:
23
24
25
26
27
28

[S]tay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances.
Because granting a stay effectively excuses a petitioner’s failure to
present his claims first to the state courts, stay and abeyance is only
appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for
the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.
Moreover, even if a petitioner had good cause for that failure, the district
court would abuse its discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his
unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2)
(“An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the

1

merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the
remedies available in the courts of the State”).

2
Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. The Court went on to state that, “[I]t likely would be an abuse of discretion
3
for a district court to deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had good cause for
4
his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that
5
the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Id. at 278. The Ninth Circuit has held
6
that the application of an “extraordinary circumstances” standard does not comport with the “good
7

cause” standard prescribed by Rhines. Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661-62 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court

8
may stay a petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims if: (1) the habeas petitioner has
9
good cause; (2) the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious; and (3) petitioner has not engaged
10
in dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277; see also Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019,
11

1023-24 (9th Cir. 2008).

12
Petitioner acknowledges that two of his current federal claims are unexhausted (Dkt. #14, pp.
13
7-9). Respondents have not opposed the motion to stay the federal proceedings until the Nevada
14
Supreme Court adjudicates his state postconviction claims. Petitioner has demonstrated good cause
15
under Rhines for the failure to exhaust all grounds of the federal petition prior to filing it. Specifically,
16
petitioner alleges that he pursued the two unexhausted postconviction claims in state court when he
17
learned of the bases for the claims. Accordingly, a stay and abeyance of this federal habeas corpus
18
proceeding is appropriate. Further, the grounds of the federal petition that petitioner seeks to exhaust
19
in state court are not “plainly meritless” under the second prong of the Rhines test. Currently, the court
20
has no indication that petitioner engaged in dilatory litigation tactics. This court thus concludes that
21
petitioner has satisfied the criteria for a stay and abeyance under Rhines. Petitioner’s motion for a stay
22
and abeyance of this federal habeas corpus proceeding is granted.
23
Petitioner’s motion for leave and extension of time to file a second amended petition (Dkt. #15)
24
is denied as moot. Petitioner, through counsel, will need to file a motion to re-open the case after his
25
state postconviction proceedings have concluded. Further, petitioner shall file a motion to file a second
26
amended petition and attach a proposed second amended petition. Such second amended petition shall
27
28
-2-

1

clearly and concisely set forth the factual basis for his claims, as well as demonstrate that the petition

2

is timely and that his claims are exhausted.

3
4
5
6
7
8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for issuance of stay and abeyance
(Dkt. #14) of this federal habeas corpus proceeding is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to file a second amended
petition (Dkt. #15) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED pending final resolution of
petitioner’s postconviction habeas petition.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the grant of a stay is conditioned upon petitioner returning

10

to federal court with a motion to reopen the case within forty-five (45) days of the issuance of the

11

remittitur by the Supreme Court of Nevada, at the conclusion of the state court proceedings on the

12

postconviction habeas petition.

13
14
15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk SHALL ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this
action, until such time as the court grants a motion to reopen the matter.
Dated: April 13, 2105.

16
17

___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-