Mahmoud v. Speer

Filing 17

ORDER granting Petitioner's 13 Motion to Stay. This case is stayed. The briefing schedule (Dkt. 11 ) is stricken. Petitioner is directed to file a report every ninety (90) days informing the Court of the status of petitioner's state proceedings. The first status report is due on or before February 14, 2024 and shall include the state court cause number. The clerk is directed to re-note respondent's response (Dkt. 9 ) for February 14, 2024. If the state court dismisses or resolves petitioner's state court proceedings, petitioner is directed to inform the Court and file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days of the state court taking action. Signed by Judge Theresa L Fricke.(MW)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6

AFIF MAHMOUD,

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

v.

Case No. 3:23-cv-05494-DGE-TLF

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY
AND ABEY

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent.

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s Motion to Stay and Abey Federal
Habeas Proceedings and Strike Briefing Schedule. Dkt. 13. Respondent has filed a
response in opposition to petitioner’s motion. Dkt. 14.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this matter raising two claims for relief (1)
Mahmoud has a constitution right to a direct appeal, and (2) ineffective assistance of
counsel. Dkt. 4. On August 8, 2023, Respondent filed an answer claiming that petitioner
has not properly exhausted his claims because (1) he did not adequately alert the
Washington State Court of Appeals or the Washington State Supreme Court as to the
federal nature of his claims, and (2) his ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleges a
different basis of ineffective counsel from the claim raised in the Washington State
courts. Dkt. 9 at 7-9. On August 15, 2023, the Court granted petitioner’s motion for an
appointment of counsel. Dkt. 11. On September 28, 2023, petitioner filed a motion to

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY
AND ABEY - 1

1

stay and abey this matter asserting that he has a personal restraint petition (“PRP”)

2

pending in the Washington state courts and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim

3

will not be exhausted until the PRP proceeding is final. Dkt. 13 at 1-2. Respondent

4

opposes petitioner’s motion, contending that petitioner cannot exhaust his claims even

5

with a stay and his claims are frivolous. Dkt. 14 at 1. Petitioner filed a reply stating that

6

he has satisfied the criteria of Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) and therefore the

7

Court should stay and abey his habeas proceeding pending finality of his state court

8

PRP. Dkt. 13 at 6.

9

DISCUSSION

10

District courts may use a “stay-and-abeyance” procedure while a petitioner

11

exhausts his claims in state court. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275-77 (2005);

12

Calderon v. United States District Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir.1998).  A

13

stay is appropriately granted where: (1) the petitioner has good cause for his failure to

14

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

15

indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines,

16

544 U.S. at 278.

17

Petitioner argues that he satisfies the criteria under Rhines and therefore the stay

18

should be granted. Dkt. 13. Respondent argues that the stay should be denied because

19

a stay would not allow petitioner to properly exhaust his federal claims, and his federal

20

claims are frivolous. Dkt. 14 at 2. Petitioner argues that he has good cause for his

21

failure to exhaust because prior to the recent appointment of counsel he was

22

proceeding pro se; he additionally argues that there is no indication that the failure to

23

exhaust derives from intentionally dilatory tactics and on the contrary he has been

24
25

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY
AND ABEY - 2

1

diligently pursuing his claims. Dkt. 13 at 3-6. The parties appear to disagree only on the

2

second Rhines factor: whether the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious.

3

Petitioner argues that his claims are potentially meritorious because he supports

4

his ineffective assistance of counsel claim with evidence that counsel failed to advise

5

him to file a notice of appeal and recognize exonerating evidence and his right-to-

6

appeal claim has merit because there is a federal law basis to be raised in habeas here.

7

Id. at 6. Respondent argues that petitioner’s claims are plainly meritless because (1)

8

petitioner fails to point to any Supreme Court authority for his right to appeal claim and

9

he was informed at sentencing of his right to appeal within 30 days of entry of judgment,

10

and (2) petitioner fails to present evidence that satisfies the requirements for an

11

ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668

12

(1984). Dkt. 14 at 4-7. Respondent also argues that a stay would be futile because even

13

if plaintiff amends his petition to present federal claims to the Washington State

14

Supreme Court where his PRP is currently pending, he will not be able to exhaust those

15

claims because he did not present them to the Washington state court of appeals. Id. at

16

2-4

17

The Ninth Circuit has held that principles of comity and federalism require federal

18

courts to “refrain from ruling on the merits of the claim unless ‘it is perfectly clear that

19

the petitioner has no hope of prevailing.’” Dixon v. Baker, 847 F.3d 714, 722 (9th Cir.

20

2017) (quoting Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir. 2005)). “‘A contrary rule

21

would deprive state courts of the opportunity to address a colorable federal claim in the

22

first instance and grant relief if they believe it is warranted.’” Id. (quoting Cassett, 406

23

F.3d at 624)

24
25

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY
AND ABEY - 3

1

Petitioner’s claims are not on their face plainly meritless. In his “affidavit in

2

support of motion for extension of time” filed in division two of the Washington state

3

court of appeals, petitioner declared that his trial attorney advised him to appeal his plea

4

after sentencing but after his arrival to prison he learned that he had to file a notice of

5

appeal within 30 days of the trial court entering his judgment and sentence and this time

6

had elapsed. Dkt. 10 at 27. Defendant was granted an extension to file a late notice of

7

appeal but upon a motion to modify by the State of Washington the appeal was

8

dismissed. Dkt. 10 at 201. The Supreme Court has recognized that where counsel has

9

consulted with defendant regarding the right to appeal, counsel’s failure to file a notice

10

of appeal is deficient only where counsel fails to follow their client’s specific instructions

11

regarding an appeal. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 479 (2000).

12

Petitioner does not allege whether he instructed his counsel to file an appeal and

13

therefore it is unclear whether the failure to file a notice of appeal constituted ineffective

14

assistance of counsel in accordance with Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686

15

(1984). However, the only determination for the Court to address is whether petitioner

16

has raised a potentially meritorious claim, not whether the claim actually has merit. See

17

Dixon, 847 F.3d at 722. Therefore, at this stage in the proceedings it is appropriate to

18

grant petitioner’s motion to stay to allow him to exhaust his claims in the Washington

19

State Supreme Court.

20
21
22
23

CONCLUSION
After reviewing the relevant record, the Court concludes petitioner’s motion
should be granted. The Court ORDERS as follows:
1.
2.

Petitioner’s motion to stay (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED. This case is stayed.
The briefing schedule (Dkt. 11) is stricken.

24
25

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY
AND ABEY - 4

1

3.

2
3

4.

4

5.

5
6
7

Petitioner is directed to file a report every ninety (90) days informing the
Court of the status of petitioner’s state proceedings. The first status report
is due on or before February 14, 2024 and shall include the state court
cause number.
The clerk is directed to re-note respondent’s response (Dkt. 9) for
February 14, 2024.
If the state court dismisses or resolves petitioner’s state
court proceedings, petitioner is directed to inform the Court and file a
motion to lift the stay within 30 days of the state court taking action. 

Dated this 14th day of November, 2023.

8

A

9

Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY
AND ABEY - 5