Sanders v. Folk

Background

Ricky Rene Sanders filed this pro se action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a state prisoner to challenge a state-court conviction or sentence. He challenged a 2014 conviction from the San Mateo County Superior Court. The state court convicted him of 44 felonies and sentenced him to 834 years to life in prison.

The California Court of Appeal reversed some counts, ordered a sentence enhancement removed, directed the trial court to resentence Sanders, and otherwise affirmed the conviction. The California Supreme Court denied review. At the time of this order, Sanders had not yet been resentenced; the opinion states that resentencing was scheduled for April 28, 2020.

Pending Motion and Reasons for the Stay

The federal court had issued an order requiring a response explaining why relief should not be granted on more than a dozen claims in Sanders’s amended petition. Folk had filed a pending, unopposed motion to dismiss, arguing that some claims were procedurally defaulted—barred because of a failure to comply with state procedural requirements—and that other claims had not been exhausted in state court.

The court was concerned that proceeding before resentencing could waste judicial resources. A new judgment after resentencing could require the court to reconsider the same or related issues. The court cited decisions explaining that a federal petition filed after resentencing and entry of a new or amended judgment is not necessarily treated as a second or successive petition requiring special permission. The court therefore concluded that it was preferable to wait until resentencing and any related state-court challenges were completed.

Ruling

The court stayed the action and ordered the clerk to administratively close it. Administrative closure paused the case for docket-management purposes; the court stated that nothing further would occur until Sanders was resentenced, exhausted state-court remedies for any claims, and moved within a reasonable time to reopen the case and lift the stay.

The court dismissed Folk’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling after the stay was lifted, if that occurred. The court stated that it would later decide whether Sanders should proceed with all claims in one case, in two consolidated cases, or otherwise. The order did not decide the merits of Sanders’s habeas claims.