Morales v. Schultz

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-04438
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ERICK MORALES, Case No. 24-cv-04438-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. STAY; OF DISMISSAL

10 JASON SCHULTZ, Re: Dkt. No. 11 Defendant. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding without representation by an 14 attorney, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claims his 15 “petition for resentencing satisfies the prima facie requirements” of California Penal Code 16 Sections 1170.96 and 1172.6. (ECF No. 1 at 5-6.) Because this claim does not allege a violation 17 of federal law, the petition was dismissed for failure to state a claim capable of judicial 18 determination, and Petitioner was given until Aust 30, 2024, to amend his petition. (ECF No. 4 at 19 2-3 (citing cases).) The deadline to amend was extended three times, to January 18, 2025 (ECF 20 Nos. 6, 8, 10), but Petitioner did not amend his petition. Instead, Petitioner filed a motion to stay 21 this matter “pending the exhaustion of unexhausted federal claims.” (ECF No. 11.) For the 22 reasons explained below, the motion to stay is DENIED, and the petition is DISMISSED without 23 prejudice. 24 DISCUSSION 25 The order dismissing the petition with leave to amend cautioned Petitioner that his failure 26 to file an amended petition by the deadline “may result in dismissal of this action . . . without 27 prejudice to Petitioner filing a new habeas petition after any claims based upon federal law are 1 petition by asserting that the denial of his re-sentencing petition violated federal law, he must 2 exhaust such a claim––by presenting it to the California Supreme Court––before he may obtain 3 federal habeas relief. (Id. at 2-3.) The most recent order extending the deadline to amend advised 4 Petitioner as follows:

5 Petitioner will be granted a final extension of time to and including January 18, 2025, to file an amended complaint in accordance with 6 the order of dismissal with leave to amend. If his claim is not exhausted by that time, Petitioner must at the same time file a 7 motion to stay in which he makes the showing required by Rhines [v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)]. Failure to do so may result in the 8 dismissal of this case without prejudice.[1] 9 (ECF No. 10 at 2:10-14.)2 10 Despite the order directing him to file an amended petition and, if necessary, a motion for a 11 stay, as noted above, he only filed a motion to stay and did not file an amended petition. (ECF No. 12 11.) Petitioner has not filed an amended petition by the “final” deadline, as he was instructed to 13 do (ECF No. 10 at 2), nor has he shown cause for this failure or requested an additional extension 14 of time to amend. Accordingly, as the Court warned on multiple occasions (ECF Nos. 4 at 3; 6 at 15 1; 8 at 1; 10 at 2), this case will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling when his claims, if any, 16 under federal law have been exhausted. 17 A stay is not appropriate because there are no pending claims capable of judicial 18 determination insofar as Petitioner has not amended his petition to assert a violation of federal 19 law. Petitioner has not, in any event, shown he meets any of the requirements for staying a federal 20 habeas petition pending exhaustion of claims in the state courts. A district court has the discretion 21 under certain circumstances to stay petitions containing unexhausted claims. In Rhines v. Weber, 22 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the United States Supreme Court held a district court may stay a petition to 23 allow the petitioner to exhaust unexhausted claims in state court if the petitioner shows (1) “good 24 cause” for his failure to exhaust his claims in state court prior to bringing them in federal court; (2) 25 his unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless”; and (3) he has not engaged in “intentionally 26

27 1 The order explained the showing required for a stay under Rhines. (ECF No. 10 at 1-2.) 1 dilatory litigation tactics.” Id. at 278 (addressing “mixed” petitions containing both exhausted and 2 unexhausted claims); see also Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 909 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding district 3 court has discretion to stay a petition containing only unexhausted claims under the circumstances 4 set forth in Rhines). The motion for a stay does not identify the claim(s) he wishes to exhaust (let 5 alone show they are not “plainly meritless”), explain his failure to exhaust such claim(s) in state 6 court prior to bringing it in this Court, or show he has not been “dilatory” in pursuing his claim(s). 7 See Rhines, 526 U.S. at 278. As a result, he has not satisfied the requirements for a stay pending 8 exhaustion of federal habeas claims. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons explained above, the motion for a stay is DENIED. The petition is 11 DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new petition containing exhausted claim(s) for the 12 violation of federal law. A certificate of appealability will not issue because the Court does not 13 conclude “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the 14 denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). 15 The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 16 This order resolves docket number 11. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: 19 20 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27