Christy v. Hutchings

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 DERRELL LEE CHRISTY, JR., Case No.: 2:21-cv-00132-APG-BNW

4 Petitioner, Order Granting Motion for Stay and 5 v. Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot

6 WILLIAM HUTCHINGS, et al., [ECF Nos. 27, 42]

7 Respondents.

9 Petitioner Derrell Lee Christy, Jr. filed a second amended habeas petition. ECF No. 18. 10 The respondents moved to dismiss, arguing that some of Christy’s claims are barred by the 11 statute of limitations and others are unexhausted in state court. ECF No. 27. In response, Christy 12 filed a motion for stay. ECF No. 42. Christy acknowledges that some of his claims are 13 unexhausted in state court, states that he has initiated a new state habeas action asserting the 14 unexhausted claims, and requests that this action be stayed until the state court proceedings have 15 concluded. Id. The respondents do not oppose a stay. ECF No. 43. 16 In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the Supreme Court of the United States 17 circumscribed the discretion of federal district courts to impose stays to facilitate habeas 18 petitioners’ exhaustion of claims in state court. The Court stated: 19 [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 20 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 21 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 22 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, 23 notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State”). 1 * * * 2 [I]t likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay and to 3 dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that 4 the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. In such circumstances, the district court should stay, rather than dismiss, the mixed 5 petition.

6 544 U.S. at 277–78. Christy asserts there is good cause for his failure to exhaust his claims 7 previously because he did not have state post-conviction counsel, there was a Brady violation, 8 and he has new evidence of actual innocence. ECF No. 42 at 3–7. He argues that his 9 unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless and that he has not engaged in intentionally dilatory 10 litigation tactics. Id. at 5-7. The respondents do not contest any of these showings. ECF No. 43. 11 I will stay this action pending the completion of Christy’s state court proceedings. My 12 intention is that this will be the last time I impose a stay to facilitate Christy’s exhaustion of 13 claims in state court. Christy must exhaust all his unexhausted claims in state court during the 14 stay imposed by this order. I will deny the respondents’ motion to dismiss, without prejudice, as 15 moot. 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that Christy’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance (ECF No. 42) is 17 GRANTED. This action is stayed. The stay will remain in effect while Christy exhausts in state 18 court his unexhausted claims for habeas corpus relief. The Clerk of the Court is directed to 19 administratively close this case. 20 I FURTHER ORDER that within 30 days of the conclusion of Christy’s state court 21 proceedings, Christy must move to lift the stay of this action. 22 23 ] I FURTHER ORDER that this action will be subject to dismissal if Christy does not comply with the time limits in this order, or if he otherwise fails to proceed with diligence during the stay. 4 I FURTHER ORDER that the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is 5] DENIED, without prejudice, as moot. 6 DATED: June 23, 2022. 7 LE 8 ANDREW P.GORDON sis UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23