Joseph Marsala v. Chance Andes, Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 JOSEPH MARSALA, Case No. 25-cv-10239-AMO (PR)

8 Petitioner, ORDER STAYING HABEAS PROCEEDINGS; DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE 9 v. QUARTERLY STATUS REPORTS; AND DIRECTING CLERK TO ADMINISTRATIVELY 10 CHANCE ANDES, Warden, CLOSE THIS CASE UNTIL THE COURT ISSUES ORDER LIFTING STAY Respondent. 11 Re: Dkt. No. 1 12 Petitioner Joseph Marsala, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin 13 Rehabilitation Center, filed the instant habeas corpus action, representing himself. He initially 14 filed a request for stay and abeyance. Dkt. 1. Thereafter, he filed an initial petition for a writ of 15 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 4. He has also filed an application for leave to 16 proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 5. 17 Marsala acknowledges that his petition contains exhausted claims as well as unexhausted 18 claims that have not been exhausted before the state courts. Dkt. 1 at 1; Dkt. 4 at 7-8.1 Therefore, 19 he requests a stay of the proceedings while he completes the process of exhausting his 20 unexhausted claims in state court. Id. 21 Prisoners in state custody seeking to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings 22 either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, 23 either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court 24 available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in 25 federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). The 26 27 1 exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim (1) has been “fairly presented” to the 2 state courts, see Crotts v. Smith, 73 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 1996); or (2) no state remedy remains 3 available, see Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). Marsala states that he intends 4 to file a post-conviction petition, which include the claims that were not exhausted at the time he 5 filed the instant federal petition. Dkt. 1 at 1. Accordingly, the instant federal petition is a mixed 6 petition. 7 District courts have the authority to issue stays of mixed petitions and the Antiterrorism 8 and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) does not deprive them of that authority. Rhines v. 9 Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). However, the district court’s discretion to stay a mixed 10 petition is circumscribed by AEDPA’s stated purposes of reducing delay in the execution of 11 criminal sentences and encouraging petitioners to seek relief in the state courts before filing their 12 claims in federal court. Id. at 277. 13 Because the use of a stay and abeyance procedure has the potential to undermine these dual 14 purposes of AEDPA, its use is only appropriate where the district court has first determined that 15 there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust the claims in state court and that the 16 claims are potentially meritorious. Id. Here, the court finds that Marsala has not engaged in 17 dilatory tactics and the unexhausted claims appear to be potentially meritorious. 18 Good cause appearing, Marsala’s request for a stay is GRANTED, dkt. 1, and the petition 19 for a writ of habeas corpus is construed as a protective petition and STAYED so that Marsala can 20 exhaust his unexhausted claims in the state courts. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 21 (2005) (holding that prisoners who run risk of having federal statute of limitation expire while 22 exhausting their state remedies may avoid this predicament “by filing a ‘protective’ petition in 23 federal court and asking the federal court to stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings until 24 state remedies are exhausted”); see also Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78 (holding that district court has 25 authority to stay mixed petition where there was good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust 26 claim in state court, and the claim is potentially meritorious). The Clerk of the Court shall 27 ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of this action. ] lifted. He must file quarterly reports describing the progress of his state court proceedings, 2 |} commencing twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order and continuing every ninety (90) 3 days thereafter until his state court proceedings are terminated. He must also attach to his status 4 || reports copies of the cover page of any document that he files with or receives from the state 5 courts relating to the claims. 6 Nothing further will take place in this action until Marsala receives a final decision from 7 || the highest state court and, within twenty-eight (28) days of doing so, moves to reopen the action, 8 lift the court’s stay and amend the stayed petition to add the newly-exhausted claims. 9 Marsala’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 5. 11 Dated: 4/8/2026 -

13 ELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 14 United States District Judge

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28