From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bonilla v. Duncan

United States District Court, N.D. California
Jun 23, 2005
No. C 05-1350 SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2005)

Opinion

No. C 05-1350 SI (pr).

June 23, 2005


ORDER STAYING ACTION AND TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE ACTION


Petitioner, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2002 conviction in Alameda County Superior Court. Petitioner also filed a "motion for stay and abeyance, alternatively leave to amend" in which he explained that he had recently obtained access to pretrial records not earlier available to him and discovered therein some new claims that he wanted to present in his federal habeas action but needed to first exhaust state court remedies for them. He further explained that he had already filed habeas petitions in the trial and appellate courts and was preparing a habeas petition to file in the California Supreme Court. Petitioner satisfied the requirements in Rhines v. Weber, No. 03-9046, slip op. at 7-8 (U.S. Mar. 30, 2005), for a stay of his habeas action in that he showed good cause for the delayed presentation of the claims to the state courts, showed he acted promptly to present his claims in state court once discovered and asserted that the claims are for constitutional errors. The motion for a stay and abeyance is GRANTED. (Docket # 4.)

This action is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Nothing further will take place in this action until petitioner exhausts the unexhausted claims, and, within thirty days of doing so, moves to reopen this action, lift the court's stay and amend the petition to add the newly-exhausted claims. If petitioner does not return within thirty days of exhausting the unexhausted claims, the action may be dismissed. See id. at 7-8; Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1071 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 2094 (2003).

Petitioner's motion to exceed the normal page limits is DENIED as unnecessary as there is not a limit on the number of pages for a habeas petition. (Docket # 3.)

Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 5.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bonilla v. Duncan

United States District Court, N.D. California
Jun 23, 2005
No. C 05-1350 SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2005)
Case details for

Bonilla v. Duncan

Case Details

Full title:ISAIAH THOMPSON BONILLA, Petitioner, v. W.A. DUNCAN, warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Jun 23, 2005

Citations

No. C 05-1350 SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2005)