Cooper v. State

Background

Gregory Cooper, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenged alleged errors by the trial court during Cooper’s resentencing. The opinion states that Cooper was convicted by a jury in 2002 of murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was resentenced on September 5, 2023, and stated that he appealed the resentencing.

The court had dismissed Cooper’s original petition with permission to amend. It found that Cooper had not shown that he had presented his claims to the California Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit had transferred Cooper’s request to file another petition to this court after determining that he did not need permission to challenge the amended judgment resulting from resentencing.

Motion for a stay

Cooper moved to stay the federal case so he could exhaust his claims in state court. He argued that mental-health issues caused him to send his petition to the wrong court and that he needed a stay to properly pursue his claims in state court.

Under the standard described in Rhines v. Weber, a federal court may stay a habeas case when the petitioner shows good cause for failing to exhaust claims first, the claims may have merit, and the petitioner has not intentionally delayed the litigation. The court found that Cooper met those requirements.

Ruling and conditions

The court GRANTED Cooper’s motion for a stay. The case is STAYED while Cooper exhausts his claims in the California Supreme Court. If he does not obtain relief in state court, he may return to this court and ask to have the stay lifted. He must specifically identify the exhausted claims in an amended petition.

The order requires Cooper to diligently pursue his state-court habeas proceedings and to notify this court after the state courts have reviewed his claims or refused to review them. If he does not satisfy either condition, the court may vacate the stay and act on the petition.

The Clerk was directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the case. The order says that the closure is only statistical and has no legal effect; the case will be reopened and the stay vacated after Cooper provides the required notification. The court also warned that failing to keep the court informed of address changes or failing to comply with orders in a timely manner may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.