Rodriguez v. Sherman ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 MICHAEL ELIJAH RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 19-cv-00793-JD 5 Plaintiff, y. ORDER RE STAY Re: Dkt. No. 5 7 STUART SHERMAN, et al., g Defendants. 9 Petitioner Michael Elijah Rodriguez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on 10 || February 13, 2019, asserting six claims regarding his sentence in state court. Dkt. No. 1. On 11 March 19, 2019, Rodriguez moved to stay his petition in order to properly exhaust five of the six 12 || claims, which had not been presented in his first state habeas corpus petition. Dkt. No. 5. The 5 13 || State of California opposes the stay. Dkt. No. 14. A stay is granted to allow Rodriguez to exhaust 14 || the claims in his petition. 3 15 Rodriguez has satisfied the requirements of Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). 16 He has shown good cause for his failure to exhaust, namely, ineffective assistance of state post- 3 17 conviction counsel. Dkt. No. 5 at 3; see also Blake v. Baker, 745 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2014) 18 || Gneffective assistance by post-conviction counsel can be good cause under Rhines). Rodriguez’s 19 || unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278. Rodriguez has also 20 || already begun litigating his unexhausted claims, and has periodically updated the Court regarding 21 its status, Dkt. Nos. 12, 16, 17, showing that there is no indication of “intentionally dilatory 22 litigation tactics.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278. 23 Consequently, a stay is warranted. Rodriguez must advise the Court within 30 days of 24 || exhausting all the claims in his petition. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: January 16, 2020 27 28 JAMES PONATO United tates District Judge