Scott v. Santoro
- Nathanael Cousins
- 3:25-cv-05202
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Scott v. Santoro, Judge Martinez-Olguin stayed the federal habeas case while Scott exhausts his claims in state court.
James Scott’s federal habeas case is paused while he pursues exhaustion of his claims in the state courts. He must provide quarterly status reports and seek to reopen the federal case within 28 days after a final decision from the highest state court.
What happened
James Scott v. Kelly Santoro, Acting Warden concerns Scott’s federal challenge to his confinement. Scott, representing himself, said that all of his claims were still unexhausted in state court and asked the federal court to pause the case while he pursued them there.
The court found that Scott had not delayed improperly and that his claims appeared potentially meritorious. Scott also had a pending habeas petition in the state supreme court covering the claims he had not yet exhausted.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin vacated the earlier order requiring Scott to respond, granted his request for a stay, and stayed the federal petition as a protective petition. Scott must file quarterly reports about his state proceedings and, within 28 days after receiving a final decision from the highest state court, ask to reopen the federal case.
The detailed version
- Scott V. Santoro · No. 3:25-cv-05202
- Nathanael Cousins
- Dec. 15, 2025
Background
James Scott, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a federal petition challenging his confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He represented himself. The court had previously issued an order requiring him to show why the case should proceed and had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Scott asked the court to stay the federal proceedings. He acknowledged that his petition contained only claims that he had not yet presented to the state courts. He attached a habeas petition that he said he had submitted to the state supreme court to exhaust all of those claims.
Exhaustion and stay
Before a state prisoner may pursue federal habeas relief challenging the fact or length of confinement, the prisoner generally must give the highest available state court a fair opportunity to decide each federal claim. The court determined that Scott’s pending state supreme court petition included the claims that were unexhausted when he filed the federal petition.
The court explained that it may stay a federal habeas petition containing unexhausted claims when the requirements for a stay are met. Those requirements include a showing of good cause for failing to exhaust earlier and claims that are potentially meritorious. The court found that Scott had not engaged in delaying tactics and that his unexhausted claims appeared potentially meritorious.
Ruling and required reports
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin vacated the November 17, 2025 order to show cause. The court granted Scott’s request for a stay and construed the federal petition as a protective petition. The court stayed the habeas proceedings so Scott could exhaust his claims in state court.
Scott must pursue the state proceedings diligently, or the stay may be lifted. He must file quarterly status reports describing the progress of those proceedings and attach copies of the cover pages of documents he files with or receives from the state courts concerning the claims.
Nothing further will occur in the federal case until the state proceedings end with a final decision from the highest state court. Within 28 days after that decision, Scott must move to reopen the federal case, lift the stay, and amend the stayed petition to include any newly exhausted claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.