Fields v. LeGrand et al
Filing
23
ORDERED that P's # 20 Motion to stay is GRANTED. FURTHER ORD that this action is STAYED pending exhaustion. P may move to reopen the matter following exhaustion. FURTHER ORD that the grant of a stay is conditioned upon P filing a state post-con viction petition or other appropriate proceeding in state court within 45 days from the entry of this order and returning to federal court with a motion to reopen within 45 days of issuance of the remittitur. FURTHER ORD that the Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this action, until such time as the court grants a motion to reopen the matter. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 2/6/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
MATTHEW ARTHUR FIELDS,
9
Petitioner,
10
vs.
11
ROBERT LEGRAND, et al.,
12
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/
3:11-cv-00341-LRH-WGC
ORDER
13
14
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by Matthew Arthur
15
Fields, a Nevada prisoner. On November 16, 2011, the court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss
16
in part, concluding that several grounds are unexhausted (ECF #19). On November 30, 2011, petitioner
17
filed a motion to stay and abey proceedings under Rhines v. Weber (ECF #20), in which he agrees that
18
several of his claims are unexhausted. Respondents filed an opposition (ECF #21), and petitioner replied
19
(ECF #22).
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 Rhines
22
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 merits,
notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the
courts of the State”).
1
Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. The Court went on to state that, “[I]t likely would be an abuse of
2
discretion for a district court to deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had
3
good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there
4
is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Id. at 278.
5
The Ninth Circuit has held that the application of an “extraordinary circumstances” standard
6
does not comport with the “good cause” standard prescribed by Rhines. Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654,
7
661-62 (9th Cir. 2005). The court has declined to prescribe the strictest possible standard for issuance
8
of a stay. “[I]t would appear that good cause under Rhines, at least in this Circuit, should not be so
9
strict a standard as to require a showing of some extreme and unusual event beyond the control of the
10
defendant.” Riner v. Crawford, 415 F. Supp.2d 1207, 1210 (D. Nev. 2006). Thus, a petitioner’s
11
confusion over whether or not his petition would be timely filed constitutes good cause for the
12
petitioner to file his unexhausted petition in federal court. See Riner v. Crawford, 412 F. Supp.2d at
13
1210 (citing Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416-17 (2005)).
14
In the instant case, this court finds that petitioner has demonstrated good cause under Rhines
15
for the failure to exhaust several grounds. Further, those grounds are not “plainly meritless” under the
16
second prong of the Rhines test. Finally, there is no indication that petitioner engaged in dilatory
17
litigation tactics. This court concludes that petitioner has satisfied the criteria for a stay under Rhines
18
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to stay and abey proceedings (ECF
19
#20) is GRANTED.
20
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED pending exhaustion of the
unexhausted claims. Petitioner may move to reopen the matter following exhaustion of the claims.
22
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the grant of a stay is conditioned upon petitioner filing a
23
state post-conviction petition or other appropriate proceeding in state court within forty-five (45) days
24
from the entry of this order and returning to federal court with a motion to reopen within forty-five (45)
25
days of issuance of the remittitur by the Supreme Court of Nevada at the conclusion of the state court
26
proceedings.
27
///
28
///
2
1
2
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.
3
4
DATED this 6th day of February, 2012.
5
6
7
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?