Maddaus v. Boe

Filing 15

ORDER granting Petitioner's 9 Motion to Stay his case. His motion to stay 9 insofar as he asks for a finding of equitable tolling and his 10 Motion for clarification are denied. The Court orders this case be stayed until 8/17/18. Res pondents are directed to file a report and a motion to extend the stay on or before 8/2/18 -- fourteen days before the stay ends. Should the state court dismiss petitioner's state post-co0nviction review or otherwise terminate review, respondent will inform the Court and file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days of the state court's action. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Robert Maddaus, Prisoner ID: 975429)(CMG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

ROBERT J. MADDAUS,
Petitioner,

11
12
13

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-06020-RBL-JRC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY AND DENYING MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION

v.
JERI BOE,
Respondent.

14
15
16

The District Court has referred this petition for a writ of habeas corpus to United States

17

Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. The authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

18

and (B), and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. The petition is filed pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 2254.

20

Before the Court are petitioner’s motion to stay (Dkt. 9) and motion for clarification of

21

statutory deadline (Dkt. 10). Because petitioner is still attempting to exhaust his state court

22

remedies, the Court finds it has discretion to order a stay in this case and therefore grants

23

petitioner’s motion to stay. However, because the state court has not yet ruled on whether

24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY AND
DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION - 1

1

petitioner’s state post-conviction relief was properly filed, the Court cannot yet determine

2

whether equitable tolling applies here and cannot provide petitioner with the statutory deadline

3

he requests. The Court therefore denies petitioner’s motion for clarification.

4
5

DISCUSSION
I.

6

Motion to Stay
Petitioner requests that the case be stayed in order to finish exhausting his state court

7

remedies, and respondent does not object. The Court ordinarily has the authority to issue stays

8

when such a stay would be a proper exercise of discretion, though this discretion is more limited

9

in federal habeas proceedings. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). A district court may

10

stay a petition if: (1) petitioner has “good cause” for failure to exhaust the claims in state court;

11

(2) the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious; and (3) there is no indication that

12

petitioner intentionally engaged in dilatory litigation tactics. Id. at 278.

13

Here, petitioner meets these criteria. He explains that he believes the state court is

14

mishandling his post-conviction relief, leading to the undue delay. See Dkt. 9. His claims, if

15

proven true, could warrant relief and, further, respondent does not object to the stay, indicating

16

petitioner is not engaging in dilatory litigation tactics. Because of this, the Court has discretion to

17

grant a stay and the Court does so here.

18

II.

Motion for Clarification of Statutory Deadline

19

In both his motion to stay and motion for clarification, petitioner asks the Court to

20

establish that the time he is currently spending in state court will count towards an equitable toll

21

on his federal habeas petition. A one-year statute of limitations applies to federal habeas

22

petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). However, “[t]he time during which a properly filed application

23

for State post-conviction or other collateral review . . . is pending shall not be counted toward

24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY AND
DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION - 2

1

any period of limitation [for a habeas petition].” Id., § 2244(d)(2). A state post-conviction review

2

is generally only properly filed if it has been filed in a timely manner. Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S.

3

4, 8 (2000).

4

Here, the state court has not yet ruled on whether petitioner’s personal restraint petition is

5

timely. Thus the Court cannot yet determine whether it was properly filed and cannot determine

6

whether equitable tolling applies. The Court agrees with respondent that petitioner’s request is

7

premature. Exhaustion is an issue that should be addressed after attempts for state post-

8

conviction relief have been completed. Therefore, the Court denies petitioner’s motion for

9

clarification without prejudice.

10
11

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, petitioner’s motion to stay insofar as he asks the Court to

12

stay the case (Dkt. 9) is granted. His motion to stay insofar as he asks for a finding of equitable

13

tolling (Dkt. 9) and his motion for clarification (Dkt. 10) are denied.

14

The Court orders that this case be stayed until August 17, 2018.

15

Respondents are directed to file a report and a motion to extend the stay on or before

16
17

August 2, 2018 – fourteen days before the stay ends.
Should the state court dismiss petitioner’s state post-conviction review or otherwise

18

terminate review, respondent will inform the Court and file a motion to lift the stay within 30

19

days of the state court’s action.

20

Dated this 20th day of February, 2018.

A

21
22

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY AND
DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION - 3