Sanchez v. Martinez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
Petitioner withdrew a motion to stay federal habeas proceedings pending state exhaustion after the California Supreme Court denied his state habeas petition. The court required Respondent to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to Petitioner's assertion that state remedies are exhausted.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring Respondent to file an Opposition or Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff’s assertion of exhaustion by December 22, 2023“As such, the Court requires Respondent to file an Opposition or Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff’s assertion of exhaustion by December 22, 2023.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that the withdrawal of the stay motion is contingent on the exhaustion of state remedies. By requiring the respondent to respond to the petitioner's assertion of exhaustion, the court follows standard procedure to ensure the factual predicate for proceeding in federal court is verified. The citation to the California Supreme Court's denial supports the petitioner's claim. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural step to verify exhaustion. It correctly cites the state court decision that denied the habeas petition, which is the key fact supporting the withdrawal of the stay motion. It does not need to apply complex federal habeas standards at this stage, only to set a deadline for the respondent to confirm or contest the exhaustion status.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NAKUNTA SANCHEZ, Case No.: 3:23-cv-01561-WQH-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 13 v. FROM RESPONDENT 14 KELLY MARTINEZ, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 On September 25, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion to stay, seeking “to stay federal 17 proceedings until state remedies are exhausted” under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 18 (2005). ECF No. 4. On October 30, 2023, Respondent filed a “statement of no opposition 19 to [Petitioner’s] motion for stay.” ECF No. 6. On November 22, 2023, Petitioner filed a 20 reply, addressing the Rhines factors. ECF No. 8; see ECF No. 7 (requiring that Petitioner 21 file a reply, reiterating that “in order to warrant a stay, the Rhines factors must be met”). 22 On December 5, 2023, Petitioner requested to withdraw his motion to stay, explaining that 23 the California Supreme Court denied his appeal on November 15, 2023, “thus fulfilling the 24 exhaustion requirement.” ECF No. 9. As such, the Court requires Respondent to file an 25 Opposition or Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff’s assertion of exhaustion by 26 December 22, 2023. See ECF No. 9; see also In re Sanchez, No. S282243, 2023 Cal. 27 LEXIS 6504, at *1 (Nov. 15, 2023) (“The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. (See 28 People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 (a petition for writ of habeas corpus must 1 |/include copies of reasonably available documentary evidence); In re Dexter (1979) 25 2 ||Cal.3d 921, 925-926 (a habeas corpus petitioner must exhaust available administrative 3 remedies); In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 (a petition for writ of habeas corpus must 4 || allege sufficient facts with particularity).”) (brackets in original replaced with parentheses). IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: December 8, 2023 1 Aion. Moola Honorable Allison H. Goddard 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Duvall S032489 · 1995-01-19
- In Re Swain Crim. 5015 · 1949-09-26