Ronald Young v. Kelly Santoro

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02965
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD YOUNG, No. 2:25-cv-2965 DAD CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 KELLY SANTORO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 19 transferred petitioner’s petition to this court. (ECF No. 1.) On October 17, 2025, this Court 20 ordered petitioner to either pay the filing fee or file an in forma pauperis application. (ECF No. 21 4.) Because petitioner’s counsel was appointed by the Ninth Circuit, the October 17, 2025 order 22 was issued in error. Accordingly, the October 17, 2025 order is vacated. 23 On November 6, 2025, petitioner’s counsel, Karyn H. Bucur, filed a motion for 24 substitution of appointed counsel. (ECF No. 7.) Ms. Bucar requests that attorney Benjamin 25 Ramos be substituted as petitioner’s appointed counsel. (Id.) Good cause appearing, this Court 26 orders that the motion for substitution is granted and attorney Benjamin Ramos is substituted as 27 petitioner’s appointed counsel. 28 In the petition, petitioner states that he did not fully exhaust state court remedies. (ECF 1 |} No. 2 at 15.) Petitioner requests that this action be stayed pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 2 || 269 (2005) so that he may exhaust state court remedies. (Id. at 15-16.) If petitioner still seeks a 3 || stay pursuant to Rhines, petitioner shall file a motion to stay this action pursuant to Rhines within 4 || thirty days of the date of this order.! Petitioner shall not set a Rhines motion for hearing. This 5 || Court will set a hearing for petitioner’s Rhines motion if, after reviewing the pleadings, this Court 6 || determines that oral argument would be helpful. If petitioner has now exhausted state court 7 || remedies and does not seek a stay pursuant to Rhines, petitioner shall inform this Court within 8 | thirty days. 9 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The October 17, 2025 order directing petitioner to file an in forma pauperis application 11 | or to pay the filing fee (ECF No. 4) is vacated; 12 2. The motion to substitute Benjamin Ramos as petitioner’s appointed counsel (ECF No. 13 | 7) is granted; and 14 3. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file a motion for a Rhines 15 || stay or inform the Court that he no longer seeks a Rhines stay; if petitioner files a motion for a 16 || Rhines stay, respondent’s opposition shall be filed within thirty days thereafter; and petitioner 17 || may file a reply to the opposition within fourteen days thereafter. 18 19 | Dated: November 13, 2025 eq □□ cc’ . 20 An Spo CHI SOO KIM 71 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 || Youn2965.ord/2 23 24 | | Petitioner’s request for a Rhines stay made in the petition does not address the factors required for a Rhines stay: 1) there is “good cause” for the failure to exhaust; 2) each unexhausted claim 1s 25 | not “plainly meritless;” and 3) the petitioner did not intentionally engage in dilatory litigation 26 tactics. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. Pursuant to Rhines, a district court has discretion to stay a mixed or wholly unexhausted petition to allow a petitioner to exhaust his claims in state court. 27 || See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276; Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that a district court has discretion to stay fully unexhausted petitions under the circumstances set forth 28 | in Rhines).