George Hudson v. State of Nevada

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 GEORGE HUDSON, Case No. 3:25-cv-00407-ART-CLB 5 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING STAY 6 v.

7 STATE OF NEVADA,

8 Respondents.

9 Pro se Petitioner George Hudson filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 10 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1-1.) This Court instructed Hudson to file an 11 amended petition. (ECF No. 3.) Hudson filed a motion for appointment of counsel, 12 motion to recalculate his time computation, motion to submit exhibits, and his 13 amended petition. (ECF Nos. 5, 7, 9, 10, 12.) Following an initial review of the 14 amended petition, this Court deferred ruling on Hudson’s motions and directed 15 Hudson to show cause why his amended petition should not be dismissed 16 without prejudice as wholly unexhausted. (ECF No. 16.) In response, Hudson 17 moved for a stay. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the motion 18 for a stay. 19 I. BACKGROUND1 20 Hudson challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the First Judicial 21 District Court (“state court”) in case number 23CR00204. The state court entered 22 a judgment of conviction on July 17, 2024, convicting Hudson of obtaining and 23 using the personal identity of another for an unlawful purpose. Hudson was 24 sentenced to 60 to 150 months in prison. Hudson was originally granted 25 probation, but the state court entered a Judgment of Revocation of Probation on 26

27 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Nevada appellate courts (http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do). 28 Notably, the First Judicial District Court does not have online docket records. 1 April 10, 2025. Hudson filed an appeal of the judgment revoking his probation, 2 and that appeal is still pending in the Nevada appellate courts. George Hudson v. 3 State, 90505. 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 This Court is authorized to stay an unexhausted petition in “limited 6 circumstances,” to allow a petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state 7 court. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 273–75 (2005). Under the Rhines test, this 8 Court may grant a stay when “(1) the petitioner has ‘good cause’ for his failure to 9 exhaust his claims in state court; (2) the unexhausted claims are potentially 10 meritorious; and (3) there is no indication that the petitioner intentionally 11 engaged in dilatory litigation tactics.” Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1023 12 (9th Cir. 2008). The Rhines “good cause” standard does not require “extraordinary 13 circumstances.” Id. at 1024. However, courts “must interpret whether a petitioner 14 has ‘good cause’ for a failure to exhaust in light of the Supreme Court’s 15 instruction in Rhines that the district court should only stay mixed petitions in 16 ‘limited circumstances.’” Id. Courts must also “be mindful that AEDPA aims to 17 encourage the finality of sentences and to encourage petitioners to exhaust their 18 claims in state court before filing in federal court.” Id. 19 Hudson does not dispute that his amended petition is wholly unexhausted; 20 rather, Hudson requests that this Court stay these proceedings, explaining that 21 he intended his amended petition to be a protective petition.2 (ECF No. 18.) Given 22

23 2 Where a petitioner is attempting in good faith to exhaust state remedies but is unsure whether state proceedings for post-conviction relief are “properly filed” 24 under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), he may file a “protective petition” in federal court and ask for a stay and abeyance of the federal habeas proceedings until he 25 exhausts his state remedies. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278. By filing a protective petition, a petitioner seeks to avoid a determination that a federal habeas petition 26 is time-barred after months or years of litigating in state court. Pace v. 27 DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005). “A petitioner’s reasonable confusion about whether a state filing would be timely will ordinarily constitute ‘good cause’ 28 for him to file in federal court.” Id. 1 that (1) Hudson’s appeal of the judgment revoking his probation is still pending 2 in the Nevada appellate courts and (2) the procedural posture of this case is 3 unusual—i.e., Hudson never filed a direct appeal or a state habeas petition due 4 to him being granted probation—meaning that Hudson has reason to be unsure 5 whether this federal action will be timely,3 the Court finds that Hudson has 6 shown good cause under Rhines. Moreover, Hudson’s amended petition is not 7 plainly meritless, and Hudson has not engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation 8 tactics. Accordingly, the Court grants Hudson’s motion for a stay. 9 Turning to Hudson’s other filings, the Court denies Hudson’s motion for 10 appointment of counsel without prejudice. Hudson may renew this motion upon 11 moving to reopen this matter. The Court also denies Hudson’s motion for this 12 Court to recalculate his time computation and his motion to file supporting 13 exhibits. (ECF Nos. 7, 9.) This Court is not able to recalculate Hudson’s time 14 computation under state law, and Hudson may file exhibits in this matter without 15 seeking leave of this Court, making his instant motion unnecessary. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 It is therefore ordered that the motion for stay (ECF No. 18) is granted. 18 Hudson must move to reopen this action within 45 days of the issuance of the 19 remittitur by the Nevada Supreme Court at the conclusion of his state court 20 proceedings. 21 It is further ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22 5) is denied without prejudice. 23 It is further ordered that the motion for recalculation of his time 24 computation and motion to file supporting exhibits (ECF Nos. 7, 9) are denied. 25 It is further kindly ordered that the Clerk of Court stay and administratively 26 close this action. 27 3 The Court makes no determination whether Hudson’s petition or amended 28 petition are timely. 1 DATED THIS 12th day of November 2025. 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28